Obama has been doing a cracker-jack job of giving out at much money to the lower socio-economic classes as possible. This is most likely to secure his re-election. I'm curious what happens when it's no longer possible to give those people as much or any "free" money? They don't seem to do so well once you take away their gubmint cheese.

I'm thinking something has to be done whether for the better or worse of those people but what's the next logical (I really hesitate to use that word with this administration!) step after the middle class is eliminated or severely downsized?

Did anyone else hear the clip played on one of the news shows about "Obama money"? This woman, of a certain lower socio-economic standpoint, is talking to a reporter about the "Obama money" she's getting. She's hootin and hollarin and celebrating about the free money. When asked where that money comes from she says "Obama...it's Obama money". When asked we Obama got the money from the woman goes "pshhh...his stash!". :steamed:

So we go deeper into debt as if the national debt doesn't really exist? Do we just tell the bottom-feeders to go pound sand and get a job? Is there some other option I'm not thinking of?

Why is this in the survival forum? Well I'm going to throw a shot in the dark here and say that once anything extreme happens that has the potential to piss off a few million ghetto dwellers, things might get less than civil for the rest of society in an effort to exact some measure of revenge or equalize themselves with those more fortunate/hard working.

Please share your thoughts.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

Aceman

03-27-2010, 14:00

Well, a few things to consider:

#1 Capitalism will self destruct. There are NO well balanced economic systems. These things emerged/developed. They were not designed/made. The reality of the universe is this. Poverty breeds poverty, and excess breeds excess. The rich WILL continue to accumulate wealth, and more and more will have less and less. Nature of the beast. It's not republican/democrat - it's human, it's greed.

#2 The level of lifestyle that the large middle class in this country enjoys is fundamentally unsustainable. We did that to ourselves. You can see the growth of imaginary economic prosperity throughout the 60's, right through the 70's, up to today. That will collapse and be eaten away. You'll go either up to the rich end, or down to the poor end. How rich are you REALLY? What skill and value do you have REALLY. every person over-estimates themselves to amazing degree's IMO.

#3 EVERY society has eventually came to a point where poor masses have ravaged a rich minority (a couple of exceptions - but very different cultures. And they are on their way there.

I always find it funny though - as a "middle class struggling person" you are probably wealthier than 90% of the worlds population. The poor in this country have no idea how poor they are not.

I think it's sad that we have some of the problems we do. There is no reason that a large number of basic health services aren't provided gratis just for being a tax paying citizen. Incredibly brilliant children who want to do good things for society and mankind can't afford an education, while rich dooshes go to harvard with one intention: Getting richer. And they already grew up with way more than any 10 people could want. I think that it is unbelievably tragic that children go without food and clothes in this country. But they do. There are a lot of ways to solve those issues. And you can do it without becoming a "welfare" state, or encouraging people to do nothing.

But the people that make those decisions are wealthy, and their number one goal is to stay that way, and they are paid to make laws that keep money for even wealthier people. You think a CEO of a mega corporation works any harder than anyone else? Nope. But he's going to make sure he keeps ALL of his money - and get as much of yours as possible.

We made wealth and material things the most important thing on the planet - now sit back and enjoy. we have lost touch with the difference between success and excess - and it's going to bite us.

And I don't know you EMT - but like I said; You are worried about the poor masses coming for you? You need to worry about the wealthy and powerful who exist to make YOU part of the poor masses.

emt1581

03-27-2010, 21:28

The problem is that the poor masses (actually I'll say the LAZY masses because it's ok to be poor)...while the wealthy/powerful will use a pen, the lazy masses will be the ones with guns and violent tendencies.

Thanks for the thoughts though. Lots of good stuff there!

-Emt1581

DaScotsman

03-27-2010, 22:30

What will happen when the handouts stop?

Remember those old Dennis Hopper/football commercials for shoes?

"Bad things, man... Bad things..."

:wavey:

emt1581

03-27-2010, 22:34

What will happen when the handouts stop?

Remember those old Dennis Hopper/football commercials for shoes?

"Bad things, man... Bad things..."

:wavey:

Might have been before my time. :dunno:

Refresh me if you'd be so kind. :)

Thanks!

-Emt1581

1985 4Runner

03-27-2010, 22:37

What happens when the hand-outs stop?
-Emt1581

Ever seen a train wreck? No two are the same, but they are all a mess.

Best you can do is prepare your loved ones for it, because it is coming IMO. I think it will be in my lifetime (I'm 39), but if not, I'll continue to prepare for my son & his unborn sibling due in Oct.

What will happen? Remember the LA riots? Now imagine that on a nationwide scale, it'd be why we prep. Every urabn area in the country would burn, which isn't really a bad thing...

DaScotsman

03-27-2010, 23:13

Might have been before my time. :dunno:

Refresh me if you'd be so kind. :)

Thanks!

-Emt1581

Hopper was in Blue-Velvet mode, and he would dress like a referee and sniff the shoe of Lawrence Taylor or some other player, and start extolling the virtues of their game while video highlights played... it was just a silly ad campaign from 20 years ago. But it always ended with Hopper having a very disturbed look on his face, and muttering "Bad things, man... Bad things..." (as in, what would happen in LT caught us sniffing his shoe? Bad things... What happens when LT catches the quarterback? Bad things...)

Chuck TX

03-28-2010, 01:00

Riots and french revolution style violence will happen.

Might have been before my time. :dunno:

Refresh me if you'd be so kind. :)

Thanks!

-Emt1581

It was from the Bruce Smith (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU8gvF6WCIk) (Buffalo Bills) shoe commercials.

kirgi08

03-28-2010, 01:35

LA riots x 100000.'08.

shavedape

03-28-2010, 01:48

Well, a few things to consider:

#1 Capitalism will self destruct. There are NO well balanced economic systems. These things emerged/developed. They were not designed/made. The reality of the universe is this. Poverty breeds poverty, and excess breeds excess. The rich WILL continue to accumulate wealth, and more and more will have less and less. Nature of the beast. It's not republican/democrat - it's human, it's greed.

:upeyes:
Please, just turn your computer off and walk away. Just please.

mitchshrader

03-28-2010, 02:12

I don't believe they'll stop. Limited (ie freeze) , purchasing power diminished by inflation/devalueing, cash awards changed to housing subsidies/food stamps, LOTS of whittling away at the edges, but net effect won't be to lower welfare cost, it'll just lower the rate of increase. Even a real level budget for welfare won't happen, it'll be indexed to inflation, so it'll still grow. Just slower.

Don't expect any more than that unless the white house AND congress is onboard. And even then you'ld want very good employment numbers to pull it off.

You're not going to change an entitlement society in one election.

ElectricZombie

03-28-2010, 02:25

Did anyone else hear the clip played on one of the news shows about "Obama money"? This woman, of a certain lower socio-economic standpoint, is talking to a reporter about the "Obama money" she's getting. She's hootin and hollarin and celebrating about the free money. When asked where that money comes from she says "Obama...it's Obama money". When asked we Obama got the money from the woman goes "pshhh...his stash!". :steamed:

I also saw that. It's hard to imagine someone being that dumb, but it seems to be the norm now.

When the handouts stop, crime will skyrocket. When the thugs stop receiving handouts, they will feel even more entitled to increase their criminal activity. They have been conditioned to not work, and live a lifestyle that glamorizes criminal activity. This will be the only excuse they need.

Exactly, what the government doesn't give them, the recipient class will just take, by force if necessary. We've all seen this in the LA Riots, Katrina, and pretty much any time a NBA team wins something. The indigent just use any excuse to go loot and get what they think they deserve. Get it while the gettin's good, as they say.

What can we do? Take a lesson from the Korean grocers who stood on top of their stores with lots of guns and defend what's yours. Those who did, protected their livelihood. Those who didn't, saw their life's work burned down and looted.

Your choice on what you want to do. I know I am protecting what's mine. Got a few thousand rounds of high velocity lead projectiles to back it up too.

kirgi08

03-28-2010, 04:47

Exactly, what the government doesn't give them, the recipient class will just take, by force if necessary. We've all seen this in the LA Riots, Katrina, and pretty much any time a NBA team wins something. The indigent just use any excuse to go loot and get what they think they deserve. Get it while the gettin's good, as they say.

What can we do? Take a lesson from the Korean grocers who stood on top of their stores with lots of guns and defend what's yours. Those who did, protected their livelihood. Those who didn't, saw their life's work burned down and looted.

Your choice on what you want to do. I know I am protecting what's mine. Got a few thousand rounds of high velocity lead projectiles to back it up too.

Don't be around when the she t goes down.'08.

lawman800

03-28-2010, 04:49

Don't be around? If I can help it, I won't be, but if they bring the fight to you and your house and try to harm your family, then there is no choice and no question that there will be quite a few people who are sorry they tried.

mitchshrader

03-28-2010, 05:07

Which is why it won't happen. The entitlement society is cheaper than riots, cheaper than prisons, cheaper than education. Welfare is the smallest payoff you can make, on a one time cash basis. It's the most expensive system in the long run, but each MONTH, it's cheaper to pay 'em than anything else. And when the money paid to them is for the most part recouped immediately in food and housing, what part is really 'spent' by the government? They get taxes on that food and housing, so there's one discount.. and the money goes right out into the community immediately, so there's a trickle down effect as far as social stabilization, those checks support businesses from electronics shops to Nike. It goes farther than you see, and is a bigger fraction of the economy than shows. Which isn't an arguement to keep it, it's telling you why it WILL be kept, not my idea but that's the logic of it.

kirgi08

03-28-2010, 05:09

Don't be around? If I can help it, I won't be, but if they bring the fight to you and your house and try to harm your family, then there is no choice and no question that there will be quite a few people who are sorry they tried.

We won't be around.The time ta go will be obvious.'08.

rj1939

03-28-2010, 05:46

I believe a lot of the things/schemes being done today are an effort to keep the social programs going.......I'm inclined to think that the gubment is very aware that they are in trouble in reguard to the handouts.

Devaluing the currency is a must for many reasons.

Taking over healthcare is a way to pump some more money in from a different source.......and if done properly, a bit of red tape and typical bureaucracy and lo and behold some of the candidates for medical proceedures pass on before getting treatment........then the benefits are twofold, the proceedure won't have to be done (saving money for the gubment) and reducing the population. Whatever assets the unlucky individual has can be taxed (death tax) (inheritance tax)

If you will notice, the healthcare plan is set up to collect money right away while benefits are a bit farther down the road. It is all about bringing in some more money.

why

03-28-2010, 07:40

What happens when the hand-outs stop?

-Emt1581
We load up the rest of our magazines and be glad we prepared.

jdavionic

03-28-2010, 07:50

The answer is obvious and goes back to the now common statement - socialism works until you run out of other people's money.

I don't think people will be patient enough to wait that long. I wonder whether the memory of American people is good enough to last until November though. I also wonder whether it will matter when considering the new ACORN influences.

Dennis in MA

03-28-2010, 07:53

What handouts???? Short of the Health Care Bill (hint: Most folk on welfare already get free healthcare), there ain't been no handouts to the "lazy class."

I'm not an Obama fan, but this is silly. Obama isn't catering to the Moron-Class. . . becuz they forgat to voet.

In fact, I'd say the hand-outs have been kept to a bare minimum so far. Hence there IS a silver lining in the bank bailouts. LOL

jdavionic

03-28-2010, 07:58

What handouts???? Short of the Health Care Bill (hint: Most folk on welfare already get free healthcare), there ain't been no handouts to the "lazy class."

I'm not an Obama fan, but this is silly. Obama isn't catering to the Moron-Class. . . becuz they forgat to voet.

In fact, I'd say the hand-outs have been kept to a bare minimum so far. Hence there IS a silver lining in the bank bailouts. LOL

It's not so much "hand outs" for the lazy, but rather an attack against the opposite end of the spectrum - punishment of those that currently fall into the category of the "haves". I would take it even more broadly and say it's an attack on capitalism in general. The point is still valid though. What happens when we run out money from the "haves"?

hedrok

03-28-2010, 08:48

I guess my family and I would be considered "haves." We have a small business...employ 20-25 people in our busy season...10-12 in slower times...have a decent house and the property our business is on. This past year we took a 25% hit in gross sales. Our employees still got their checks...the bills still got paid...our business is still going to limp into this season with an optimistic outlook...and my wife and I continued to each work 80-90 hours a week.
While all that was going on, it's been quite a while since my wife and I have seen a paycheck...it's not been very long since we've talked to our bank on how to borrow more of our retirement savings to move the business forward... and into something that resembles a viable business.
So, if people who cannot get off their respective lazy, dead asses and just want to take from others think that there would just be the permissive attitude that has prevailed over the last couple of decades...my advise would be...DO NOT come here to take what's left of my life. You will get neither, either what's left of my life of hard work...or out of here alive. The Castle Doctrine says I don't NEED to run and I CAN defend my home...and I will. I wasn't going to run anyway...I'm too old.

Aceman

03-28-2010, 08:53

:upeyes:
Please, just turn your computer off and walk away. Just please.

Hey - I apologize man. I'm sorry if I said something to make you believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist. The easter bunny is real - seriously. Let me rephrase:

Capitalism is the BEST MOST AWESOME SYSTEM IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE BLESSED BY GOD HIMSELF PERSONALLY ON THE MONEY! I don't know why I even said anything to the contrary.

***Read on ONLY if you want to wake up and have a shot of reality
There are no pure systems. We are not a democracy - we are a representational bureaucratic republic. That little phrase has serious implications for how our little world REALLY works. And we are not a capitalist economy. We are some cobbled together pseudo version of it. and that has serious implications for things to.

It's all about balance. Doesn't matter if you have a King, a czar, a dictator, or whatever. and it doesn't matter if you are a complete communist, socialist, or capitalist system. Lose your balance and it will run into the ground. Some of these things are inherently more stable than others - but none of them operate like they should because people dick with them in bad ways. And ours is starting to push the limits of sensible operation.

We set a system up that promotes and encourages the accumulation of as much as possible. and that is what the winners will do. And nobody - I repeat nobody - sitting here typing on this thing is going to be on the list of invitees to the winners club. seriously....are any of us in the top 2% of income?

Because if you are there - your wealth keeps growing. and you can afford to pay the repubs, dems, libertarians, or tea party what it takes to let you accumulate even more.

and that amazing large lazy looking for a handout group is way small. and lazy. It's the work their ass off people who work more and more for less and less all the time that you need to worry about. I think that's most of us.

jdavionic

03-28-2010, 09:21

Hey - I apologize man. I'm sorry if I said something to make you believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist. The easter bunny is real - seriously. Let me rephrase:

Capitalism is the BEST MOST AWESOME SYSTEM IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE BLESSED BY GOD HIMSELF PERSONALLY ON THE MONEY! I don't know why I even said anything to the contrary.

***Read on ONLY if you want to wake up and have a shot of reality
There are no pure systems. We are not a democracy - we are a representational bureaucratic republic. That little phrase has serious implications for how our little world REALLY works. And we are not a capitalist economy. We are some cobbled together pseudo version of it. and that has serious implications for things to.

It's all about balance. Doesn't matter if you have a King, a czar, a dictator, or whatever. and it doesn't matter if you are a complete communist, socialist, or capitalist system. Lose your balance and it will run into the ground. Some of these things are inherently more stable than others - but none of them operate like they should because people dick with them in bad ways. And ours is starting to push the limits of sensible operation.

We set a system up that promotes and encourages the accumulation of as much as possible. and that is what the winners will do. And nobody - I repeat nobody - sitting here typing on this thing is going to be on the list of invitees to the winners club. seriously....are any of us in the top 2% of income?

Because if you are there - your wealth keeps growing. and you can afford to pay the repubs, dems, libertarians, or tea party what it takes to let you accumulate even more.

and that amazing large lazy looking for a handout group is way small. and lazy. It's the work their ass off people who work more and more for less and less all the time that you need to worry about. I think that's most of us.

Not sure who asserts capitalism is the perfect system. That's just silly. Any system out there today is flawed.

However there are countless examples of those 'work their ass off' folks achieving wealth. There is no guarantee, but there is an opportunity. The issue that folks are concerned with is imposing a system that inhibits or even removes this opportunity. And worse yet, a system that rewards you for not even trying.

How does Obamacare fall into this category? It continues to impose taxes on those evil large corporations. Personally, I don't think Obamacare was every really aimed at solving health care issues. Instead, I think it has the same goal as the stimulus package, cap & trade, amnesty, etc. It is aimed at destroying capitalism. It's really not a mystery. Barrack and Michele has long expressed a disgust about capitalism.

However, we are a democratic republic. That means that we (the people) ought to have the ability to change or eliminate the laws that we believe are wrong. Unfortunately, the last election showed that the people can be compromised with voter fraud. Once distrust in the electoral process becomes the norm, we are in serious trouble.

lawman800

03-28-2010, 09:24

Which is why it won't happen. The entitlement society is cheaper than riots, cheaper than prisons, cheaper than education. Welfare is the smallest payoff you can make, on a one time cash basis. It's the most expensive system in the long run, but each MONTH, it's cheaper to pay 'em than anything else. And when the money paid to them is for the most part recouped immediately in food and housing, what part is really 'spent' by the government? They get taxes on that food and housing, so there's one discount.. and the money goes right out into the community immediately, so there's a trickle down effect as far as social stabilization, those checks support businesses from electronics shops to Nike. It goes farther than you see, and is a bigger fraction of the economy than shows. Which isn't an arguement to keep it, it's telling you why it WILL be kept, not my idea but that's the logic of it.

True. But then again, where does the government get the power to take MY money to give to someone else so THEY can spend it and pump up the economy?

Also, the tax on food goes to the State as there is no national sales tax... yet. HUD housing and Section 8 are owned by the government, so there is no property tax circulating either.

Your scenario is more like the cash for clunkers, caulkers, and refrigerators program. Take my money, give it to some schlub to buy a government approved car. Claim victory for new cars sold at a $45,000 markup when all the bureaucratic tape is done.

Poor people lose out because all the used cars traded in are destroyed. No cheap used cars on the market for them. Toyota netted more sales than any American company. Most cars sold actually are trucks and SUV's which only got the minimum mpg improvement required to qualify. In all, another example of government idiocy.

It would have been way simpler and more efficient to achieve the same goal to stimulate car sales if the government simply said go out and buy an American car and take the sales price as a tax deduction. But that would be too simple and wouldn't involve multiple government bureaucratic layers so of course, that wasn't an option.

lawman800

03-28-2010, 09:31

Not sure who asserts capitalism is the perfect system. That's just silly. Any system out there today is flawed.

However there are countless examples of those 'work their ass off' folks achieving wealth. There is no guarantee, but there is an opportunity. The issue that folks are concerned with is imposing a system that inhibits or even removes this opportunity. And worse yet, a system that rewards you for not even trying.

How does Obamacare fall into this category? It continues to impose taxes on those evil large corporations. Personally, I don't think Obamacare was every really aimed at solving health care issues. Instead, I think it has the same goal as the stimulus package, cap & trade, amnesty, etc. It is aimed at destroying capitalism. It's really not a mystery. Barrack and Michele has long expressed a disgust about capitalism.

However, we are a democratic republic. That means that we (the people) ought to have the ability to change or eliminate the laws that we believe are wrong. Unfortunately, the last election showed that the people can be compromised with voter fraud. Once distrust in the electoral process becomes the norm, we are in serious trouble.

Capitalism is not perfect but it is one of opportunity. People can achieve but they have to participate and there is no guarantee of outcome. However, government has nothing to do with it in a pure capitalist system, it's all you. Name any other economic system that works like that.

Barack and Michelle hate capitalism but they sure enjoy the trappings of it, don't they? Private jets, shopping in Paris and closing down a whole store for a private spree, fancy clothes, $550 sneakers, fine dining, etc. I also didn't hear Michelle complaining about making $200k a year being on an advisory board for a local Chicago healthcare company... the same one that lobbied her husband when he was a State Senator.

G19freak

03-28-2010, 09:31

When the govt runs out of other people's money--tell the free loaders the teet has dried up and they're on their own---wait for reaction-----shoot if necessary.

Not sure who asserts capitalism is the perfect system. That's just silly. Any system out there today is flawed.
- What I'm saying is that we are seeing things that are happening BECAUSE capitalism has run amuck. Healthcare - at the end of the day, why is it so expensive? Lot's of reasons. But a huge reason is that Insurance companies make IMMENSE profit by being allowed to deny service to those who paid for that very service. Lot's of other very important reasons - but that is one. No CEO of an insurance company made less money than last year. But less people got served, and more people went without. I have a friend who pays ALL of his medical costs with a huge deductible and got his rates raised by 50%. He was doing preventative maintenance on his dime. This guy can afford a lot of health care. But at some point even he's going to break. The "market is broken because of collusion in these industries: Insurance, Medicine, Law. That's not capitalim - that's controlling the market. and that causes problems.

However there are countless examples of those 'work their ass off' folks achieving wealth. There is no guarantee, but there is an opportunity.
- You only hear about the successes. Those are big and flashy and easy to cite. But the number of failures is large (it always would be anyway...) and it grows. Microsoft PAYS the government to be allowed to unethically, and illegally run a monopoly. It destroys competition and we all pay. Independent programmers can't succeed.

And worse yet, a system that rewards you for not even trying.

- This is not a reasonable argument on my part, just saying...Have you spent time seeing people "not trying" because the rewards are soooo big that it's just not worth it. I spent time unemployed last year - and my wife. Believe me. Unemployment wasn't a good thing!

And I have been in jobs that have brought me in contact with people busting their ass and not getting by, let alone getting ahead. And they weren't a bunch of 5 baby don't know who the daddy is spending foodstamps on beer and cigarettes people. Those exist. But it's 10%, not 90%.

Personally, I don't think Obamacare was every really aimed at solving health care issues. It is aimed at destroying capitalism.
- Obama woke up one day and said "BwahahAhaHahHa - let's destroy capitalism!" Let's be real. No president ever woke up and said that. But they end up doing some dumbass things for I don't know why.

Total agreement that the current plan won't do jack. And it's Pelosi care, really. If it works - Obama claims the win. If it fails, "It was Pelosi's responsibity" Brilliant politically!!!! But I agree the best thing he could do (besides get focussed on Jobs) is stand up and say this is BS - VETO.

However, we are a democratic republic. That means that we (the people) ought to have the ability to change or eliminate the laws that we believe are wrong.

Really? I see things voted for by "our representatives" all the time that we believe are wrong. That's the difference between theory and application. Companies/wealthy pay for what THEY want. Legislators vote for what THEY believe. YOU can't change anything. In fact - they can PICK a president regardless of who we all vote for.

So either we have a very different system working here, or the basis of your statements is wrong - because things would be going on differently.

You can quote the thoery all you want - but the evidence of what the people want vs what happens suggests the thoery is not even in operation anymore. But as long as people buy into it in any way...we are toast.

tc556guy

03-28-2010, 10:14

Some good points, but some flawed stuff (IMO)

Really? I see things voted for by "our representatives" all the time that we believe are wrong. That's the difference between theory and application. Companies/wealthy pay for what THEY want. Legislators vote for what THEY believe.

I would expect for representatives to vote according to their beliefs. You'll never see a politician who has 100 % support by their population, or who bases their vote based on what the population wants. Your job as a voter is to vote for the candidate whose views mirror your own, and if enough of your fellow voters agree, that candidate wins.

The politician should talk to the voters, but no matter what stance s/he takes on an issue, some of the voters will be unhappy.

jdavionic

03-28-2010, 10:16

- What I'm saying is that we are seeing things that are happening BECAUSE capitalism has run amuck. Healthcare - at the end of the day, why is it so expensive? Lot's of reasons. But a huge reason is that Insurance companies make IMMENSE profit by being allowed to deny service to those who paid for that very service. Lot's of other very important reasons - but that is one. No CEO of an insurance company made less money than last year. But less people got served, and more people went without. I have a friend who pays ALL of his medical costs with a huge deductible and got his rates raised by 50%. He was doing preventative maintenance on his dime. This guy can afford a lot of health care. But at some point even he's going to break. The "market is broken because of collusion in these industries: Insurance, Medicine, Law. That's not capitalim - that's controlling the market. and that causes problems.

I think you misunderstood the point. Capitalism has not been prevelant in health care...as you've cited. I would add that one huge fix for health care lies in the very basic fundamental of capitalism. Presently, competition is restricted with restrictions going across state lines.

So prior to the bill, we had a health care system that failed to take advantage of capitalism and also failed at falling into the Obama's dream system. Rather than address health care shortfalls, Obama chose the forum as an opportunity to further his agenda using the grand facade of "I'm fixing health care."

- You only hear about the successes. Those are big and flashy and easy to cite. But the number of failures is large (it always would be anyway...) and it grows. Microsoft PAYS the government to be allowed to unethically, and illegally run a monopoly. It destroys competition and we all pay. Independent programmers can't succeed.

I don't know enough about Microsoft's alleged payoffs here. But I have seen corporations grow exponentially and drown out competition. The infamous WalMart and Home Depot have tried these tactics. Longer term, I don't think they work. I would say that patience would show the same for Microsoft too.

Look at Home Depot. I know that folks were completely disgusted that their buying power resulted in a "monopoly" of home improvement goods that would drive out companies like Ace Hardware. But what happened? Home Depot became incompetent. They blew off customer service. People were willing to pay more for customer service. Home Depot lost a lot of money, stock plummetted, and now they are adjusting and trying to recover.

Will that happen with Microsoft? I don't know. But I think it's possible.

- This is not a reasonable argument on my part, just saying...Have you spent time seeing people "not trying" because the rewards are soooo big that it's just not worth it. I spent time unemployed last year - and my wife. Believe me. Unemployment wasn't a good thing!

Unfortunately, yes. An example. We know a woman who is capable of working, but refuses to go back to work or change her situation. She is getting enough government money (our money) to live the way she wants to. Real example, real person, real pathetic.

- Obama woke up one day and said "BwahahAhaHahHa - let's destroy capitalism!" Let's be real. No president ever woke up and said that. But they end up doing some dumbass things for I don't know why.

Agreed. Let's be real. Where did I say he woke up as Dr. Evil? He has not changed for a long, long time. That's what astonishes me about his election. People are now acting surprised by his actions. Why? He has not been hiding his beliefs...neither has Michele.

Really? I see things voted for by "our representatives" all the time that we believe are wrong. That's the difference between theory and application. Companies/wealthy pay for what THEY want. Legislators vote for what THEY believe. YOU can't change anything. In fact - they can PICK a president regardless of who we all vote for.

Your pessimism is certainly understandable. I still think we can make a difference. In GA, our senators finally passed a bill that helps recover some of our 2A rights. It's not law yet, but certainly a step in the right direction.

However, I will readily admit that I am losing hope. I think our democratic republic is getting more & more corrupt. As I said, the group formally known as ACORN will likely be active again in November. If Americans continue to feel that we are unable to have "fair" elections and no longer have a chance to be represented, then we are in trouble. I think we are dangerously close to that point.

lawman800

03-28-2010, 10:20

- This is not a reasonable argument on my part, just saying...Have you spent time seeing people "not trying" because the rewards are soooo big that it's just not worth it. I spent time unemployed last year - and my wife. Believe me. Unemployment wasn't a good thing!

Unemployment wasn't good for YOU because you have worked and enjoyed the fruits of your labor. Also, I will assume you have morals and ethics that drive you to work for your own livelihood and provide for your family. I can't say the same for others.

I am in labor relations and have dealt with many different types, including the entitlement class and union socialists who think we owe them by virtue of us being the employer. I have been told, on more than one occasion, that it's not worth working because they make more on unemployment and welfare. I have known people to turn down work because they did the math and it's not worth it after they calculate childcare costs versus how much they get just sitting home collecting government largess.

And I have been in jobs that have brought me in contact with people busting their ass and not getting by, let alone getting ahead. And they weren't a bunch of 5 baby don't know who the daddy is spending foodstamps on beer and cigarettes people. Those exist. But it's 10%, not 90%.

People working and getting by or not getting ahead is a function of cost of living and government taxation more than anything else. Everyone knows about tax free day which is somewhere between March and April for real taxpayers, not tax eaters. Add in sales tax, property tax, excise tax, etc. and the true tax free day for most people get extended another 2 months or so, if not more. Therefore, half your money or more is spent paying the government before you get anything. Imagine if we didn't have such heavy taxation, how much real money we would have versus gross income?

Also, if you can't get ahead where you live, maybe it's time to move to a cheaper area to live or get a better job or go to school and then get a better job. Whatever. Staying in one place where the cost of living is killing you, working a dead end bad paying job with no advancement opportunities, and then complaining that you can't get ahead doesn't exactly elicit too much sympathy from me. Then again, I am a stone cold realist.

- Obama woke up one day and said "BwahahAhaHahHa - let's destroy capitalism!" Let's be real. No president ever woke up and said that. But they end up doing some dumbass things for I don't know why.

He didn't wake up as PRESIDENT and say that. He made up his mind a long time ago to destroy capitalism as an impressionable youth that hates the race of his mother who raised him.

So either we have a very different system working here, or the basis of your statements is wrong - because things would be going on differently.

Actually, nope. We have our system set up as a representative republic form of government. The people vote democratically for their representative, who then is supposed to vote as a representative of the constituents and their wishes. However, power corrupts, and no system devised by a human can be perfect once humanity gets involved.

Therefore, the system doesn't perform true to theory, because people have their own motivations aside from what they are supposed to do. If everyone did their job the way they are supposed to do it, there would be no need for the Police or Quality Control or Human Resources or anything that regulates and watches over people.

You can quote the thoery all you want - but the evidence of what the people want vs what happens suggests the thoery is not even in operation anymore. But as long as people buy into it in any way...we are toast.

Yes we are.

emt1581

03-28-2010, 12:41

Holy crap! Quite the debate on policy, through processes of politicians, etc...going on here.

I know some were shared, but lets see some more thoughts on what the dependent class does when the well runs dry. The LA riots was mentioned, but that was racially motivated. Would that really happen across the country?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

ubersoldat

03-28-2010, 12:53

When the handouts stop.
The taking begins.

lawman800

03-28-2010, 12:58

The LA riots was mentioned, but that was racially motivated.

You really believe that bullcrap that the libs and apologists dreamed up to put more blame on whitey? Criminals jumped on that and used it ever since to excuse every single act of indecency. Racially motivated my ass.

MLK marching on DC is a proper way to rally against racial injustice.

Indigents in South Central, Watts, and East LA looting shoes and televisions and yelling "I gots ta get mine cuz ****s foh free!" ain't that mad about race... multiple news clips show people looting and yelling about free **** and this includes more than one Hispanic person who was interviewed also.

I recall seeing that clip where the reporter was asking the Hispanic gangbanger wheeling out a compact washing machine in a shopping cart what's he doing and he replied that he's protesting the racial injustice and the reporter asked back, but you're not black and what does that have to do with you stealing a washing machine? He said cuz it's free and his moms needs one.

Aceman

03-28-2010, 15:50

Holy crap! Quite the debate on policy, through processes of politicians, etc...going on here.

I know some were shared, but lets see some more thoughts on what the dependent class does when the well runs dry. The LA riots was mentioned, but that was racially motivated. Would that really happen across the country?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

It wouldn't happen across the country, I don't think. It would be in pockets, here and there. Nice thing about making adjustments if you saw it start to happen.

The "well" as you put it only serves up water to 5percent or so. and thy can't afford an organized rebellion. Now - if the well get's to maybe 50%...lookout!

Back on task - the LA riot types are complete and utterly useless individuals too stupid to realize that a guy was basically endangering their own lives - got the beat down he deserved, and then got upset because an attorney.

at the end of the day - the destroyed their own houses. No problem here. Angry mob it in the direction of my neighbor hood and here is a tip:
- I don't shoot bullets in the air
- I don't waste them on my neighbors
- I don't shoot up the 7/11
- I don't loot stores for TV's I can't afford cable for...

I go to the range and practice, and I have more than enough ammo in my house for your dumb ass angry horde of looting fools. And I bet there are a few more houses that will give your side-ways glock shooting buddies some big surprises. Besides - I pay the taxes that pay for the cops and am not a criminal. They protect me first!

(a creature far worse than the evil any democrat or republican could ever be)

Aceman

03-28-2010, 15:56

I am in labor relations and have dealt with many different types, including the entitlement class and union socialists who think we owe them by virtue of us being the employer. I have been told, on more than one occasion, that it's not worth working because they make more on unemployment and welfare. I have known people to turn down work because they did the math and it's not worth it after they calculate childcare costs versus how much they get just sitting home collecting government largess.

Oh. dude - I am so sorry. I really mean that.

Labor unions serve/seved a purpose (and occassionally still do) but mostly they are PURE EVIL.

Detroit auto is a perfect example. If you can make all the cars you need for a year, but pay everyone enough to stay on staff and get full pay coverage for the rest of the year....that's effed up! And on top of that pay two DIFFERENT groups of people to make the same car?!?!?! You are doomed when that starts happening.

And then on top of that...you don't make cars that work or that people want to buy.

I've done a lot of business consulting/analysis. I have never - and I mean this in a purely objective sense - realizing that employee/customer/business needs must be balanced, seen a "Labor relations employee organization" in recent (20) years that was honestly doing any good for themselves or the company in the grand scheme of things - and having any issues that individual laws wouldn't already handle.

Spiffums

03-28-2010, 17:27

What will happen? Remember the LA riots? Now imagine that on a nationwide scale, it'd be why we prep. Every urabn area in the country would burn, which isn't really a bad thing...

Till they have no where else to go but to where we are.

lawman800

03-28-2010, 17:48

Oh. dude - I am so sorry. I really mean that.

Labor unions serve/seved a purpose (and occassionally still do) but mostly they are PURE EVIL.

Detroit auto is a perfect example. If you can make all the cars you need for a year, but pay everyone enough to stay on staff and get full pay coverage for the rest of the year....that's effed up! And on top of that pay two DIFFERENT groups of people to make the same car?!?!?! You are doomed when that starts happening.

And then on top of that...you don't make cars that work or that people want to buy.

I've done a lot of business consulting/analysis. I have never - and I mean this in a purely objective sense - realizing that employee/customer/business needs must be balanced, seen a "Labor relations employee organization" in recent (20) years that was honestly doing any good for themselves or the company in the grand scheme of things - and having any issues that individual laws wouldn't already handle.

Just to be clear, I work for the employer agency as their labor relations liaison to the union. I am management. I have to deal with the union and their reps who think they are on an equal footing with us even though they put in nothing other than labor.

I have heard so much of the disgusting tripe that we need to pay for this and that and we owe them and we have to give incentives for perfect attendance and how they have no reason not to abuse sick time because we don't cash out sick time so why not use it and we have to give them hours and make up work for them so they can pay for their mortgage or cars or we have to pay more for everything they want like medical coverage because they can't afford it.

To be honest, we pay above average wages and have great medical and retirement benefits, relative to other agencies and especially compared to private industry. I have no idea where these people get off demanding that we be their sugar daddies, because that is what it sounds like sometimes.

I know... I am venting... but that's because I am old fashioned. My incentive to show up to work is called pay. I don't expect awards for going to work other than being paid my wage. My fringe benefits are just that, fringe. I appreciate all the extras my employer gives me. I know how generous it is. We are one of very few agencies that still provides full medical coverage to the whole family, regardless of how many people are covered. Try getting anything close to that anywhere.

Then the people who are single demand to get the difference back in pay because the single party coverage is cheaper than the group composite rate we pay so they say since we're saving money, they want it back. Excuse me? Want what back? Taxpayer money that belongs to the employer? Instead of letting us bank it into reserves or use it somewhere else like programs, they think it's THEIR money because it was marked for labor costs.

Nevermind... I can go on and on and on... but what's the point. The Wagner Act pretty much sealed our fate with unions. At least it's job security, right?

G29Reload

03-28-2010, 18:24

Before the hand outs stop, confiscation of weath from the haves will begin.

Example: This weekend, BHO made a dozen or so recess appointments. You may have seen in the news.

One, an executive with SEIU, a frequent visitor to the White House and apparently a close, socialist friend of the Prez, advocates

CONFISCATING

or more nicely put, nationalizing, but meaning the absolute same thing,

All of your IRA's and 401ks.

No doubt to get around the Takings clause of the COTUS, the offended savers of their own private property, will be given scrip in its place. Certs for government benefits.

This will all be to fund some new government retirement scheme, or prop up SS.

This same topic was debated in the opening days of Congress not long after the Inauguration.

Under real socialism, there is no such thing as private property if .gov needs it.

This and other events surrounding it have me genuinely in fear of contributing to my own IRA. All of you should be too. Every thing you worked for can be confiscated. Whether or not they can get away with it is academic, 70% of the country is against the healthcare bill but its law now till its either ruled un constitutional or undone by the next congress.

hedrok

03-28-2010, 18:49

If that happens, G29....Everyone I know, myself included, who feels there are non-violent solutions to changing what they feel is wrong with .gov would now seriously be considering carrying rifles and heading for THE hill. I'm sure the .gov knows that. No-one would tolerate their life's work being simply confiscated...laws or no laws. Cops or no cops. Soldiers or no soldiers. Because, at that point, there is nothing to lose.

JKDGabe

03-28-2010, 18:56

Capitalism has failed

And we are not a capitalist economy. We are some cobbled together pseudo version of it.

:dunno: So, how can it have failed if that's not what we were doing? And I agree, that's not what we've been doing. The reason you'll never see a perfect system is because there are no perfect people. What we started with worked for a while and even though it wasn't perfect I'd sure like to go back to it. OK, enough threadjacking.

So yeah, bad things man...

lawman800

03-28-2010, 19:17

Taking our 401(k) and private accounts for government use? I know, it's for funding all the extras he is going to give to the new amnesty citizens to buy their undying 12-20 million votes. That's what we're doing. Paying for people to be loyal to him to screw us over.

I see bad bad things happening in this country soon.

mitchshrader

03-29-2010, 05:01

first squelch amnesty. then vote out incumbents who don't vote conservative. then repeal this health care bill.

if we do our part it can be fixed a year from now.

Mike2

03-29-2010, 06:21

Before the hand outs stop, confiscation of weath from the haves will begin.

Confiscation and wealth redistribution started many years ago with the departure from a governement based on exise tax to a governement based on a progressive income tax. I am in the 35% bracket, I get up at 4:30 every a.m. and work my ass off until 8:30-9:00 every night, why should I be penalized just so that lazy people who truly do not want to work, can have my earnings from my hard work redistributed to them??? This is why I support a flat or fair tax, either one take your pick would be better than what we have. I have actually contemplated shutting down a business of mine that is very profitable to prevent going into the next higher bracket. Its just not worth working six months out of the year for nothing. The have nots have already started taking.... go to Walmart and look at the out of door losses they experience, go to any retailer and look at how much is shop lifted. And btw, just an interesting side point, at the end of Bushes presidency gas was 1.81 cents per gallon, o damn bama has been in over a year and gas as I was driving in earlier this a.m. was 2.83 per gallon. I thought this idiot was supposed to change that little problem for us too!!

crimsonaudio

03-29-2010, 06:34

if we do our part it can be fixed a year from now.
Nope.

The only way to fix this, and it won't happen as we're too far gone (IMO), is to amend the constitution to where you can only vote in federal elections if you pay federal income taxes. With some 40% of US households paying ZERO income tax every year, yet being allowed to vote for the very folks who will determine how to spend the money the other 60% actually put in the pot, well, it's easy to see why we're where we are...

hedrok

03-29-2010, 06:56

Good on both of ya Mike & Crimson...you nailed it.

lawman800

03-29-2010, 06:58

Nope.

The only way to fix this, and it won't happen as we're too far gone (IMO), is to amend the constitution to where you can only vote in federal elections if you pay federal income taxes. With some 40% of US households paying ZERO income tax every year, yet being allowed to vote for the very folks who will determine how to spend the money the other 60% actually put in the pot, well, it's easy to see why we're where we are...

It's not only just that... 40% may pay ZERO but there are another 20% that pay a little but take back a lot more in services and aid. Just because you pay in doesn't make you a taxpayer. If you get EITC or other aid such as food stamps and HUD and your spouse gets unemployment while you pay in a few hundred bucks for taxes, guess what? You're a tax consumer, not a taxpayer. Guess who they also vote for?

Cajunmudman

03-29-2010, 07:06

Before the hand outs stop, confiscation of weath from the haves will begin.

Example: This weekend, BHO made a dozen or so recess appointments. You may have seen in the news.

One, an executive with SEIU, a frequent visitor to the White House and apparently a close, socialist friend of the Prez, advocates

CONFISCATING

or more nicely put, nationalizing, but meaning the absolute same thing,

All of your IRA's and 401ks.

No doubt to get around the Takings clause of the COTUS, the offended savers of their own private property, will be given scrip in its place. Certs for government benefits.

This will all be to fund some new government retirement scheme, or prop up SS.

This same topic was debated in the opening days of Congress not long after the Inauguration.

Under real socialism, there is no such thing as private property if .gov needs it.

This and other events surrounding it have me genuinely in fear of contributing to my own IRA. All of you should be too. Every thing you worked for can be confiscated. Whether or not they can get away with it is academic, 70% of the country is against the healthcare bill but its law now till its either ruled un constitutional or undone by the next congress.

agree,
With all the bad things about to happen in 24 - 36 months, there is NO WAY they will not confiscate the IRAs and 401(k)s...
The plan will be something like this: SS is broke and we need to fix it. Demonize the rich and savers, the elderly are victums, and the press and Republicans go along with it...

1) Remove ALL the incintives for investing in IRAs and 401(k)s and variable life and variable annuities.
2) FORCE people into fixed annuities or gaurenteed trusts.

Then FORCE the managers of these funds to invesst in US Treasuries. The govt now has a HUGE pool of money to spend.

Perfect time for this will be right after the next stock market crash. Which will be PLANNED!!!

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.

For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38 percent -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting, but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

It looked for a moment as though Democrats had finally reached the men of Bruce Springsteen's music, bringing them around to the progressive values Springsteen himself has long endorsed. But liberal analysts failed to understand that these new Democrats were still firmly rooted in American moderation.

Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three percentage points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.

Today, among whites, only 35 percent of men and 43 percent of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight percentage points, according to Gallup.

White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him -- 46 percent, according to Gallup -- as voted for him in 2008. But only 38 percent of white men approve of the President, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him.

The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent, a white woman, won 52 percent of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling.

It's no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and health care. Among whites, 71 percent of men and 56 percent of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.

Obama's brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ's than FDR's, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, health care and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs -- health care work, teaching and the like -- than on the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.

This recession remains disproportionately a "he-cession." Men account for at least seven of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Nearly half of the casualties are white men, who held 46 percent of all jobs lost.

In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term "angry white male" or "angry white men" was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.

Tarnishing their opponents as merely "angry" was poor politics for the Democrats. Liberals know what it's like to have their views -- most recently on the war in Iraq or George W. Bush -- caricatured as merely irrational anger. Most voters vote their interests. And many white men by the 1980s had decided the Democrats were no longer interested in them.

Think about the average working man. He has already seen financial bailouts for the rich folks above him. Now he sees a health care bailout for the poor folks below him. Big government represents lots of costs and little gain.

Meanwhile, like many women, these men are simply trying to push ahead without being pushed under. Some once believed in Obama. Now they feel forgotten.

Government can only do so much. But recall the Depression. FDR's focus on the economy was single-minded and relentless. Hard times continued, but men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them. Democrats should think about why they aren't given that same benefit of the doubt today.

David Paul Kuhn is chief political correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma." He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

tc556guy

03-29-2010, 10:34

It's not only just that... 40% may pay ZERO but there are another 20% that pay a little but take back a lot more in services and aid. Just because you pay in doesn't make you a taxpayer. If you get EITC or other aid such as food stamps and HUD and your spouse gets unemployment while you pay in a few hundred bucks for taxes, guess what? You're a tax consumer, not a taxpayer. Guess who they also vote for?

Thats an overly strict interpretation of taxpayer. By your thinking, there are a lot of farmers or other workers who would be stripped of their right to vote because they get subsidies.
I don't agree with any taxpayer requirement.

G29Reload

03-29-2010, 14:35

and Republicans go along with it...

You were right on all of that, except the above. The R's will NOT go along with it, any more than they went along with HC. They voted 100% against.

It is the Dems, who are always annoyed and unable to sleep at night knowing there is a vast pool of untaxed money out there.

lawman800

03-29-2010, 22:17

Thats an overly strict interpretation of taxpayer. By your thinking, there are a lot of farmers or other workers who would be stripped of their right to vote because they get subsidies.
I don't agree with any taxpayer requirement.

Personally, I don't think paying taxes should be the all-encompassing criteria as there are other factors more important to the right to vote... such as... oh, let's see... LITERACY? How about this one? The abililty to comprehend the issues instead of just voting for the guy who's flashier and promises more freebies? Or... actually living in the jurisdiction and being able to prove your identity and eligibility to vote? That one seems to elude ACORN a bit.

As for my interpretation, yes it is overly strict. However, what do you define as a taxpayer? Break it down further, what does it mean for you to PAY for something? If you give me $5 for my service, but I give you $10 back, did you really PAY me for anything?

Why should the government take anything from me just to give it back to me, partially, completely, or even more than what I gave it? Why not just leave me alone and let me keep my own earnings and stay out of it? How hard is that?

Or just institute a national sales tax (VAT) and do away with the income tax. People contribute based on how much they consume. The government doesn't need to do anything. Just sit back and wait for the remittances throughout the year. You don't want to contribute, don't consume. Grow your own food and sew your own clothes.

How about a flat tax or fair tax instead of our communist inspired progressive taxation? Do away with EITC and other refunds and subsidies. Everyone gives their share.

My caveat for taxes being determinative of the power to vote is this. Tax eaters and the recipient class do not get a vote on welfare, money, budget, appropriations, and spending bills. They don't pay into the system, they don't get to vote on how the money's spent, especially when you vote to spend other people's money on yourself. They can vote for gay marriage or legalizing marijuana or whatever.

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.

For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38 percent -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting, but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

It looked for a moment as though Democrats had finally reached the men of Bruce Springsteen's music, bringing them around to the progressive values Springsteen himself has long endorsed. But liberal analysts failed to understand that these new Democrats were still firmly rooted in American moderation.

Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three percentage points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.

Today, among whites, only 35 percent of men and 43 percent of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight percentage points, according to Gallup.

White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him -- 46 percent, according to Gallup -- as voted for him in 2008. But only 38 percent of white men approve of the President, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him.

The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent, a white woman, won 52 percent of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling.

It's no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and health care. Among whites, 71 percent of men and 56 percent of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.

Obama's brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ's than FDR's, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, health care and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs -- health care work, teaching and the like -- than on the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.

This recession remains disproportionately a "he-cession." Men account for at least seven of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Nearly half of the casualties are white men, who held 46 percent of all jobs lost.

In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term "angry white male" or "angry white men" was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.

Tarnishing their opponents as merely "angry" was poor politics for the Democrats. Liberals know what it's like to have their views -- most recently on the war in Iraq or George W. Bush -- caricatured as merely irrational anger. Most voters vote their interests. And many white men by the 1980s had decided the Democrats were no longer interested in them.

Think about the average working man. He has already seen financial bailouts for the rich folks above him. Now he sees a health care bailout for the poor folks below him. Big government represents lots of costs and little gain.

Meanwhile, like many women, these men are simply trying to push ahead without being pushed under. Some once believed in Obama. Now they feel forgotten.

Government can only do so much. But recall the Depression. FDR's focus on the economy was single-minded and relentless. Hard times continued, but men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them. Democrats should think about why they aren't given that same benefit of the doubt today.

David Paul Kuhn is chief political correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma." He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

That's because they are all racist.:whistling::whistling::whistling:

emt1581

03-29-2010, 22:24

I just heard them talking about a VAT tonight on either Cavuto or Hannity. That it would have to be somewhere around 20% ON TOP of all the other sales taxes we currently have in each state. :wow:

Just to put it in perspective, that means that an item off the dollar menu at McD's would now cost $1.26 instead of just $1.06. Not such a big deal...we shouldn't be eating fast food anyways right?

Do the math on buying cars, guns, and pretty much anything over $100...the cost starts to climb.

,,,and he's got 2 more years left after this one!...

Let's hope the congressional deck gets shuffled a bit so that congress and the president aren't one massive branch.

-Emt1581

G29Reload

03-29-2010, 22:37

I just heard them talking about a VAT tonight on either Cavuto or Hannity.

the problem with VAT is it would not replace the income tax. It would supplant it.

So even if you were close to retirement and wanted to go "on strike" and not contribute to paying punitive income taxes, they'd still get their hands in your pockets when you consume.

You could never escape.

emt1581

03-29-2010, 22:39

the problem with VAT is it would not replace the income tax. It would supplant it.

So even if you were close to retirement and wanted to go "on strike" and not contribute to paying punitive income taxes, they'd still get their hands in your pockets when you consume.

You could never escape.

Right. This is why it's crucial to turn the boat around (through voting the rats off the ship) before the ship sinks.

-Emt1581

lawman800

03-29-2010, 22:40

Well, he's got amnesty and nationalizing our 401(k) and then maybe he can get to taking over the entire banking industry and then onto the VAT. Don't worry, he's getting to it.

tc556guy

03-30-2010, 12:41

Personally, I don't think paying taxes should be the all-encompassing criteria as there are other factors more important to the right to vote... such as... oh, let's see... LITERACY? How about this one? The abililty to comprehend the issues instead of just voting for the guy who's flashier and promises more freebies? Or... actually living in the jurisdiction and being able to prove your identity and eligibility to vote? That one seems to elude ACORN a bit.
....Why should the government take anything from me just to give it back to me, partially, completely, or even more than what I gave it? Why not just leave me alone and let me keep my own earnings and stay out of it? How hard is that?
.....How about a flat tax or fair tax instead of our communist inspired progressive taxation? Do away with EITC and other refunds and subsidies. Everyone gives their share.

My caveat for taxes being determinative of the power to vote is this. Tax eaters and the recipient class do not get a vote on welfare, money, budget, appropriations, and spending bills. They don't pay into the system, they don't get to vote on how the money's spent, especially when you vote to spend other people's money on yourself. They can vote for gay marriage or legalizing marijuana or whatever.

If you are going to use education, where does it end? You have to have a PhD? Define "literate".
How hard is it? well, we all should contribute to the costs. I agree that there should be a flat tax, with everyone paying in, but to cover the costs of everything, you'd have to set the rate so high that you'd breaking the budgets of those barely getting by. So in some fashion, those of us who are productive would still be subsidizing those who don't make as much.
I don't agree with your thoughts on taxpayers vs non-taxpayers, just because you think some consume more than others. The determining sentiment should be that we all have a say in how our government is run, not on how much we can contribute to the running of that government. Otherwise, you disenfranchise a lot of people with no say in how things are run.

DISPENSER 4 HIRE

03-30-2010, 23:05

I am almost certain, that everyone who wasted thier time on midnight basketball, and watching ganster rap videos will get two jobs, and go to night school. Possibly the number of Doctors, and physicist will rise so fast, that there will be underemployment in those fields. I think once that is worked out, we can all focus on just where those flying monkeys came from. Anyone have some Preparation H ?

lawman800

03-31-2010, 07:53

If you are going to use education, where does it end? You have to have a PhD? Define "literate".
How hard is it? well, we all should contribute to the costs. I agree that there should be a flat tax, with everyone paying in, but to cover the costs of everything, you'd have to set the rate so high that you'd breaking the budgets of those barely getting by. So in some fashion, those of us who are productive would still be subsidizing those who don't make as much.
I don't agree with your thoughts on taxpayers vs non-taxpayers, just because you think some consume more than others. The determining sentiment should be that we all have a say in how our government is run, not on how much we can contribute to the running of that government. Otherwise, you disenfranchise a lot of people with no say in how things are run.

You know TC... I disagree with you vehemently on 99.375084% of your posts and I still disagree on this one but I do see your point and I appreciate your calm presentation.

I would define literate as reading at a high school level, not honors, not advanced, just basic reading comprehension. There is a national standard for that. I don't buy the slippery slope argument about Ph.D.'s being next or whatnot. Just that you have to be able to read the voter information pamphlet and understand the blurb about each candidate and each proposition. It's not much info, so it's not too much to ask for someone to know what they are voting for, other than that the name reminds them of their favorite uncle or something.

Personally, I would take a national VAT and abolish all types of income tax. The VAT (based off our GDP) wouldn't even be that high... I can swallow 10% if I didn't have income tax taken off my gross pay.

As for breaking budgets? That is such a fallacy that 5% would hurt a poor person more than 5% hurts me. Here, throwing out some numbers. I did the math on some typical wage levels and a 5% cut for someone in an entry level clerk job might see $30-50 a month with a 5% cut but I would see $250 with a 5% cut. Should I still have to pay more than my same 5% share because I might be able to absorb it better just because I manage my finances differently and built a cushion?

As for all people having a vote, that is great. However, when those who have no liability and responsibility to contribute but get all the benefits they vote for themselves, how long will it take before society crumbles unto itself with that class of unproductive citizenry? It's simply not sustainable. It is what brought down Rome. History does not lie.

tc556guy

03-31-2010, 09:41

I would define literate as reading at a high school level, not honors, not advanced, just basic reading comprehension. There is a national standard for that. I don't buy the slippery slope argument about Ph.D.'s being next or whatnot. Just that you have to be able to read the voter information pamphlet and understand the blurb about each candidate and each proposition.

Thats YOUR definition. When this country tried to impose voting requirements before, it was to deny people their ability to vote. Too much opportunity to abuse the ability to exclude people for the wrong reasons. Lets say we impose your supposidly "reasonable" limits..now that the camel nose is in the tent and we have people used to denying 8some* people, whats to stop those in power from exclusing more and more people, until the whole camel is in the tent and only the powerful have a say ( vote) in the gov't.

As for breaking budgets? That is such a fallacy that 5% would hurt a poor person more than 5% hurts me.

Five per cent for a person living check to check absolutely hurts more than those who have tons of disposable income.

As for all people having a vote, that is great. However, when those who have no liability and responsibility to contribute but get all the benefits they vote for themselves, how long will it take before society crumbles unto itself with that class of unproductive citizenry? It's simply not sustainable. It is what brought down Rome. History does not lie.

Not having a say in the government was one cause of our Revolution. There are many lessons in history.

Marine8541

03-31-2010, 10:05

It's not only just that... 40% may pay ZERO but there are another 20% that pay a little but take back a lot more in services and aid. Just because you pay in doesn't make you a taxpayer. If you get EITC or other aid such as food stamps and HUD and your spouse gets unemployment while you pay in a few hundred bucks for taxes, guess what? You're a tax consumer, not a taxpayer. Guess who they also vote for?

Great point and I'll take it even further than that. There's guys on this thread crying about handouts who took money off my table and put it in their pockets for the last few rounds of rebates and what ever they called it. Some of the very people who are complaining the loudest here had no problem taking money from me that they didn't earn.

The people who were excluded in those rebates because they made too much were the ones who paid for it.

G29Reload

03-31-2010, 12:05

Five per cent for a person living check to check absolutely hurts more than those who have tons of disposable income.

No it doesn't. Not down in a low income bracket, 5% doesnt amount to nearly as much as high earner.

Earn $100 - $5
Earn $400 - $20
Earn $900 - $45

I think there should be an AMT on the poor. The idea that 40% pay absolutely nothing is obscene. Rush Limbaugh was right...raise taxes on the poor. No other group has taken more and given less.

The "poorest" of ghettos sport spinner rims, lottery ticket outlets and liquor stores on top of drug habits. They're not poor, they have plenty of money for everything else, they're just running on different priorities. Those priorities include having govt fund their lifestyle.

hedrok

03-31-2010, 12:34

A friend of mine sells those ridiculous spinner wheels, special tires, etc. Close to 80% of his customers live in areas where the houses are worth less than the SUVs the wheels and tires are going on.
Being poor is an "event in life." Staying poor is a choice. Many make that choice because they are too damned lazy to get off the "system."
Another friend of mine is a supervisor of a security company in a Metro Housing Project and has worked there since the 60s...MANY of the residents are on the 4th and some are on the 5th generation of welfare handouts.
Meanwhile, those of us who have worked to build a future our whole lives are being squeezed harder and harder to provide for more handouts for more and more people who are able bodied enough to getup at noon or later and party all night...but can't or won't get a JOB. Go to ANY metro housing facility and see how many babies, toddlers, and children are up and around at 2-5am going from door to door, looking for whichever parent they can find to tend to their needs. It's not black or white people...it's STUPID, LAZY people. No sympathy coming from here. They have the same opportunities as all of the rest of us have...they simply choose to come up with excuses to not to take advantage of the ones that involve effort and commitment on their own part.

emt1581

03-31-2010, 13:38

A friend of mine sells those ridiculous spinner wheels, special tires, etc. Close to 80% of his customers live in areas where the houses are worth less than the SUVs the wheels and tires are going on.
Being poor is an "event in life." Staying poor is a choice. Many make that choice because they are too damned lazy to get off the "system."
Another friend of mine is a supervisor of a security company in a Metro Housing Project and has worked there since the 60s...MANY of the residents are on the 4th and some are on the 5th generation of welfare handouts.
Meanwhile, those of us who have worked to build a future our whole lives are being squeezed harder and harder to provide for more handouts for more and more people who are able bodied enough to getup at noon or later and party all night...but can't or won't get a JOB. Go to ANY metro housing facility and see how many babies, toddlers, and children are up and around at 2-5am going from door to door, looking for whichever parent they can find to tend to their needs. It's not black or white people...it's STUPID, LAZY people. No sympathy coming from here. They have the same opportunities as all of the rest of us have...they simply choose to come up with excuses to not to take advantage of the ones that involve effort and commitment on their own part.

Living a few blocks from a housing project, I see this stuff everyday and is pisses me off! Thugs just out of high school driving beautiful brand new Mercedes, BMW's, and Audi's while I'm busting my ass to make a buck. The thing is, as long as you're willing to live in a slum, there's really nothing motivating them to change their ways.

Hell, they get free food, education, medical care, income, housing, etc. Plus they can stay there and in that situation for as long as they want. So as long as they never need a home loan (and why would they?), there's really no consequences to their lifestyle....it just gets easier and more rewarding. And that "ghetto" group is increasing so much in size that, I feel, when you even attempt to take away their hand outs, look out America!! Remember, guns are bad and the law loves to protect the criminal!

Now, yes, I realize a good number of the people living in slums and driving nice cars are probably stealing/dealing to get those vehicles. Still, we're rewarding them rather than confronting their practices.

-Emt1581

tc556guy

03-31-2010, 13:44

No it doesn't. Not down in a low income bracket, 5% doesnt amount to nearly as much as high earner.
.
A guy who is living check to check is stretching every dollar. A guy in a much hbigher income bracket may live in a better neighborhood, wear suits instead of uniforms, drive better cars, but in general they have more disposable income.

.
Being poor is an "event in life." Staying poor is a choice. Many make that choice because they are too damned lazy to get off the "system."

May be true much of the time, but its also often a generalization.

slewfoot

03-31-2010, 13:47

This is a strong case of doing away with the income tax and replacing it with a consumer tax.

No reportable income but still can buy a Mercedes? No problems.:supergrin:

G29Reload

03-31-2010, 13:57

A guy who is living check to check is stretching every dollar.

So are we all. doesnt change the fact that 5% of 200 bucks is less than 5% of twice that much. So the poor guy gets to pay 5% of little, rather than 5% of a lot.

We should all pay the same percentage, not jack it up out of class jealousy because someone decided to make something of themselves. Envy should not be a social policy.

tc556guy

03-31-2010, 15:06

We should all pay the same percentage, not jack it up out of class jealousy because someone decided to make something of themselves. Envy should not be a social policy.

Not everyone with wealth "made it" themselves.

Marine8541

03-31-2010, 15:37

Not everyone with wealth "made it" themselves.

So? Regardless of who acquired the wealth it belongs to the person who now has it. Not the Government. Not people who love to penalize the rich with this stupid graduated tax system. I acquired my wealth and I'll pass it to my kids along with many other things and it's no one else's but theirs.

I'm happy to support a graduated tax system as soon the entire system is graduated. Because I pay more I should get more votes, more police protection, better public schools, better recreation centers, better roads, better parks, better everything. Until that happens the graduated tax system is absolutely unfair. The only fair tax system is a consumption tax and no way the "middle class" will go for that because then they'd have to pay their fair share. There would be blood in the streets if people lost "their" child credits, mortgage interest, child care, charitable, and all the other BS deductions they get now.

G29Reload

03-31-2010, 16:12

Not everyone with wealth "made it" themselves.

Irelevant. So long as they came by it honestly, nothing else matters.

If they made it dishonestly, then that's a matter for law enforcement.

The nattering jealous classes always seem to think there's something wrong or evil because someone else has more than they do. I say hooray for them, it CAN happen here...to ANYONE!

Aceman

03-31-2010, 17:52

You want to talk about what breeds diss-incentives to work? It's not on government handouts - it's growing up wealthy an inheriting wealth. Breeds the most lazy, good for nothing selfish dooshes there are.

I am not in any way shape or form interested in leaving jack to my kids. They can make their own money. Or not. Don't care - they should be able to take care of themselves, if I raised them right.

crimsonaudio

03-31-2010, 18:15

Not having a say in the government was one cause of our Revolution. There are many lessons in history.
Due to taxation without representation. Now 40% of the people have representation without taxation.

I'm totally against literacy or other standards, but if you are unwilling or unable to pay for the services you receive, why on earth would you be able to vote on those who will determine those services? Makes zero sense.

For those who wish to vote, all we'd have to do is include a check-box on the 1040EZ form that says "I do not wish to receive my refund, I prefer the right to vote". I don't care if they only paid a fraction of what I pay annually, or if they pull more than they put in - I just want some semblance of fairness when a lot of us are writing huge checks to the government every year for our taxes while 40% of the population pays zilch.

G29Reload

03-31-2010, 20:27

You want to talk about what breeds diss-incentives to work? It's not on government handouts - it's growing up wealthy an inheriting wealth. Breeds the most lazy, good for nothing selfish dooshes there are.

So? Disincentive to work at that point is also irelevant...they don't need to work, and aren't dependent on government. The only issue here is your envy.

Not only that, the problem, if there is one, will solve itself. Those with little respect for money will eventually squander it all.

To top it off, far many more learn from the family wealth to perpetuate it and do things poor folks cannot do...purchase, own and operate stores, factories and businesses that hire people and create employment.

I know I've never gotten a job from a poor person.

hedrok

03-31-2010, 21:25

I'd have to strongly disagree with you, Aceman. I've seen MANY people who grew up in what might be considered "better areas" because their parents worked hard to provide that life for them. Along the way, they taught their children how to be responsible, handle money they earned themselves, and how to keep trying to improve their lives and their surroundings.
I've also seen many people who decided that living off the efforts of others was the easy way for them...and they taught their kids to do the same. Those are the same lazy jerks that come to me looking for a "job" but are upset when asked to actually work for the pay the get...note that I did not say "earn." They're the same ones who call off as much as they can get away with then ***** because they didn't get much of a check.
No thanks...don't need those folks at all.
BTW...those are the same jerks that are going to go NUTS when the handouts stop...'cause now, they'll have to get off their dead asses and actually DO something.
The "something" they do will probably join up with the nearest mob that's going around smashing store windows in and taking what they want....because it's "OWED to them."

Another point you made...you don't care about leaving "jack" to your kids. Why not...did you have a bad childhood? Do you hate your kids and grandkids? The single greatest pleasure my wife and I get is watching our now adult children prosper and move forward in life and enjoy success for themselves and their families. Some of our kids work in our small family business, and so do some of the grandkids...what an amazing thing that is.
Your comment on that alone is troubling...add that to the other statements you made and my conclusion is you are one scary, jealous, envious, guy.

Glock-it-to-me

03-31-2010, 21:48

The rioters will burn down their own neighborhoods. That's where the containment should start.

lawman800

04-01-2010, 01:01

Thats YOUR definition. When this country tried to impose voting requirements before, it was to deny people their ability to vote. Too much opportunity to abuse the ability to exclude people for the wrong reasons. Lets say we impose your supposidly "reasonable" limits..now that the camel nose is in the tent and we have people used to denying 8some* people, whats to stop those in power from exclusing more and more people, until the whole camel is in the tent and only the powerful have a say ( vote) in the gov't.
]
Not having a say in the government was one cause of our Revolution. There are many lessons in history.

I don't for one minute buy your slippery slope argument. That's a fallacy used to take away from the true argument at hand. Instead of dealing with the question, what about literacy or basic understanding of the issues, you throw out the slippery slope and it's supposed to be... oh... man... can't have that. Then the original question is ignored.

As for the American Revolution? It was taxation without representation. People back then PAID taxes without a vote. Nowadays, people get to vote without paying a penny. Representation without taxation.

A guy who is living check to check is stretching every dollar. A guy in a much hbigher income bracket may live in a better neighborhood, wear suits instead of uniforms, drive better cars, but in general they have more disposable income.

May be true much of the time, but its also often a generalization.

You're wrong. I make 2-3x more than some of the guys in the organization who are working in unskilled or entry office fields. We are taking furlough days across the board and it hurts everyone equally. Now we have those who are making less saying that those who make more need to take twice as much of a hit or that we at least need to take more days to equal out what it means to them. WTF?:steamed:

I'll just be blunt. Right now, as it stands, the average hit to those workers would be $30-50 a paycheck. The hit to me is going to be $125 a paycheck. Now they want me to take a $250 hit a paycheck so they can stick it to me better? Let see, what should I cut back on? Caviar? Swarovski Crystals? Tell Jeeves to sell one of the Bentleys?:upeyes:

I ain't living high on the hog and I don't have much disposable income after paying off the student loans and mortgage. The student loans helped me get to where I am. Should I be penalized for that level of success? I wear a suit because it is required of my position. I pay for the suits, shirts, ties, shoes and the cleaning. The guys in uniform? They get it issued, everything, and they get cleaning service paid by us.

I see those workers with new Harleys, big trucks, eating out all the time, chrome rims, etc. Me? I drive a 10 year old Ford POS with 135,xxx miles on the odo. Eat at the employee's cafeteria ($1.80-2.00/entree). Stock rims/tires (16" all weather). Everyone got disposable income, it's how you spend it. If I don't spend it and have liquid cash instead of blowing it like them, should I be penalized?

Not everyone with wealth "made it" themselves.

What does that have to do with it? Let me use your argument. At what point does your money become "not yours"?

In other words, if you earn $10,000 in salary. Then put $5,000 in the bank or stocks. Is the interest or capital gain your money? After all, you didn't do any work after you earned the initial salary. The gains are the work of the bank or stock advisor. How about your dad giving you $10,000. You use it to start a business and earn money from your work. Do you owe the government that $10,000 since it wasn't yours? Does your whole business get tainted by the fruit of the poisonous tree since the seed money wasn't yours?

How about this. You leave your house or whatever cash to your son, TC Jr., upon your death. Can I come and take it because TC Jr. didn't earn it? Can I take from you whatever it is that your father or mother left you? Can I take your lottery winnings? You didn't earn any of that stuff. Did you buy your son a car? Let me have that too. He didn't earn it.

Ted Kennedy, your champion, also didn't earn any of his money but yet, nobody said to go after the Kennedy clan for anything. Most Hollywood kids didn't earn their money. Bill Gate's kids didn't earn any of their money. Hypocrites, all of them.

What about a slippery slope? When does the government decides what is too much money for me? If I earned over $25,000 a year, is that too much? Surely I don't need that much. The rest should be given to the government to dole out to the recipient class. What about all of it? Just tax me at 100% and give me back what you think I need to live on.

I have no problems with rich people who live off their parents. At least they are not living off me like your crew. Their rich squanderings contribute more to the economy than your recipients taking my money and blowing it on their lives. I've had rich people give me jobs and buy things from my business, I've never had a recipient give me a job or spend money on my business... or if they did, it was my money given to them by the government.

Deployment Solu

04-01-2010, 03:36

When the handouts stop.
The taking begins.

When the taking begins, the shooting starts.

kirgi08

04-01-2010, 03:47

When the taking begins, the shooting starts.

Agreed.'08.

mitchshrader

04-01-2010, 03:56

That hasn't happened yet, and 'takings' of various sorts were the essence of government 'bailouts'.

Or do you think Chrysler and GM treated their stockholders fairly?

Whose fault was that?

What about bank bonuses? Are *they* takings? They take an inordinate slice of profit made by trading on your tax money.. borrowed at .25%. Can YOU borrow 5 million @ .25% to do currency trades?

Is manipulation of the tax code and accounting methods an adequate excuse for profits?

Banks ain't famous lately for being customer friendly.. but who writes their regulations?

Sub-prime housing was a GOVERNMENT mistake, and the banks demanded guarantees to make risky loans, and got them.

Takings is what they do to pay interest on the money they've borrowed in your name.

And it's not negotiable, it's all about when.

Besides taking the hit on 401K withdrawals, and hedging it... you'll need to empty safety deposit boxes of PM's, titles, random valuables, and currency. They will get sifted..

Mike2

04-01-2010, 06:52

The "Taking" started when the IRS came into existance. Most people don't have a clue as to how much "Taking" is already going on. We see what we are alotted by the governement in our take home pay and the rest is taken before our hands ever touch it. You add to this the fact that a large part of our society does nothing but take and does not give AT ALL, you have the makings of a major crash because now we have even more takers being placed on the rolls....when will it end??

rwrjr

04-01-2010, 08:30

I'm with Mitch and Mike on the taking. The US has never seen such a level of "taking" before. People seem to draw a distinction between some lowlife sneaking on your property and removing some of your belonging with that of several hundred corrupt Washington politicians and Wall Street banksters literally stealing you blind daily via the tax code, entitlements, bailouts etc. Frankly, the local lowlife can't do near as much damage, unless violent, as the aforementioned politicians and banksters.

The question in my mind is when does a significant percentage of the population decide that enough is enough? That's when it will get interesting.

Mitch hit on a topic that could be the tipping point, 401ks. Folks, I believe this is the next target and I also believe that the average American will finally realize the the DC politicians aren't a whole lot different than a stickup man.

lawman800

04-01-2010, 08:34

The "Taking" started when the IRS came into existance. Most people don't have a clue as to how much "Taking" is already going on. We see what we are alotted by the governement in our take home pay and the rest is taken before our hands ever touch it. You add to this the fact that a large part of our society does nothing but take and does not give AT ALL, you have the makings of a major crash because now we have even more takers being placed on the rolls....when will it end??

Hopefully, the tide will turn in Nov. 2010 and we'll start turning this around, but it will be a long and hard road to recovery.

The Dems and every poverty pimp and race baiter and entitlement whore will be out in force to keep the welfare state going.

emt1581

04-01-2010, 09:39

The question in my mind is when does a significant percentage of the population decide that enough is enough? That's when it will get interesting.

I don't know how realistic it is, but I've always wondered, with all of the other insignificant crap taxpayers pay for, if there isn't some "commission" that studies the American society for different subjects and one of them is how controlling the gov. can get before there is a revolution/uprising? Then they let the president (and maybe congress) know what that point is and not to screw with it...but anything short of that is just fine.

In other words, go ahead and mess with health care and immigration, but don't touch guns and private property because that's going to tip the scales.

Now I just pulled those topics at random but hopefully yall get my point. It's a matter of keeping everyone in line. Once there's no longer motivation to stay in line, that is when things as you say...will get interesting.

-Emt1581

bdcochran

04-01-2010, 16:49

EMT: Think about the following. 20 years ago, I was widowed and raising a kid in elementary school. I was working and paying for any necessary day care. One day my kid complained. "Dad you pay for everything. Most kids come to school with lunch vouchers and throw them away. They have money. They buy candy. When you come to breakfast at school, you pay for me and you. The kids get it free." I responded "Don't worry about the other people. Just take care of yourself and focus on yourself."

EMT - I am now 63 years old. I focus every day on exercise, getting proper medical care, and keeping the weight down. I don't worry about Obama Money. I only worry about living within my means.

Everyone: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the three keys to success in politics are: promise a job, promise hope and promise a place in the lifeboat. Your President is a master at making promises.

When the election was pending, I walked through the middle class section of Santa Monica, festooned with yard signs for Mr. Obama. I waived my hand towards South Central LA where people don't pay taxes. I then waived my hand at the Santa Monica Mountains where the rich live and hire CPAs and lawyers to avoid taxes. I asked the fluttering signs" "Who do you think is going to pay for all the Obama promises? It is 'you' and 'you' will never see any of his promised tax relief."

Screw all the moaning about the welfare state. Get out and exercise. Pay for skills classes (just owning a tool only makes you a tool owner, not a skilled mechanic). If you have spare money, get your dental and medical work up to date. If shtf, you will be up the food chain. Spending time cleaning up your own poop is better spent to pointing out other people's poop on the ground or their ignorance.:wavey:

Pitt

04-01-2010, 18:44

Screw all the moaning about the welfare state. Get out and exercise. Pay for skills classes (just owning a tool only makes you a tool owner, not a skilled mechanic). If you have spare money, get your dental and medical work up to date. If shtf, you will be up the food chain. Spending time cleaning up your own poop is better spent to pointing out other people's poop on the ground or their ignorance.:wavey:

Outstanding post BD, and totally correct. We all spent this time pointing the finger.

Quess what guys, you are all partially right and you are all partially wrong.
We have to do the best we can to hold on to what we got and then vote these fools out of office.

We don't want to have to take this country back at the barrel of a rifle. We don't want it to get that bad. Other nations will come to our shores and pick our bones if that happens.:crying:

lawman800

04-01-2010, 20:13

China is just waiting on the sideline for our self-destruction. Don't think for one minute that they don't have a plan in place to simply ship over 3 million PLA troops and physically take over the west coast without having to fire one single shot.

They did it in Tibet and other regions. They just simply overwhelmed the local populace with the sheer number of people they can put on the ground.

tc556guy

04-02-2010, 11:10

I don't for one minute buy your slippery slope argument. That's a fallacy used to take away from the true argument at hand. Instead of dealing with the question, what about literacy or basic understanding of the issues, you throw out the slippery slope and it's supposed to be... oh... man... can't have that. Then the original question is ignored.

The point is, you start setting prerequisites for voting other than residency, and where do the pre-requisites end? You are right, it IS a slippery slope, and one that can be used against us. Be careful what you wish for. They might try to disenfranchise you next.

As for the American Revolution? It was taxation without representation. People back then PAID taxes without a vote. Nowadays, people get to vote without paying a penny. Representation without taxation.

Everyone should be able to have a say in how their government is run, whether they pay income taxes or not. We all pay taxes of one sort or another. No one is living in the country who doesn't pay taxes of some sort.

You're wrong. I make 2-3x more than some of the guys in the organization who are working in unskilled or entry office fields.

I was referring to the extremely wealthy, the inherited wealthy, not the upper middle class.

What does that have to do with it? Let me use your argument. At what point does your money become "not yours"?

What does it have to do with it? The claim is often made that the wealthy are self-made. Often, they are not. They didn't scrimp or slave away for their wealth, they were born into the right family.

In other words, if you earn $10,000 in salary. Then put $5,000 in the bank or stocks.

What person with an annual income of 10K can afford to invest half of it, unless they are still living in mommy and daddys home.

How about this. You leave your house or whatever cash to your son, TC Jr., upon your death. Can I come and take it because TC Jr. didn't earn it? Can I take from you whatever it is that your father or mother left you? Can I take your lottery winnings? You didn't earn any of that stuff. Did you buy your son a car? Let me have that too. He didn't earn it.

Estate tax. Another thread topic. Not in favor of it.

Ted Kennedy, your champion, also didn't earn any of his money but yet, nobody said to go after the Kennedy clan for anything. Most Hollywood kids didn't earn their money. Bill Gate's kids didn't earn any of their money. Hypocrites, all of them.

Stop assuming. Ted was no friend of mine. I agree that the spoiled rich Hollywood crowd are hypocrites.

lawman800

04-02-2010, 20:00

The point is, you start setting prerequisites for voting other than residency, and where do the pre-requisites end? You are right, it IS a slippery slope, and one that can be used against us. Be careful what you wish for. They might try to disenfranchise you next.

I am already disenfranchised. I am a working male that is not in a minority or protected class of people. The government has me somewhere below the cultivation of algae in the Michigan Lakes on their list of priorities.

Everyone should be able to have a say in how their government is run, whether they pay income taxes or not. We all pay taxes of one sort or another. No one is living in the country who doesn't pay taxes of some sort.

Not everyone pays federal income tax. There is no federal sales tax. You may pay excise taxes to the feds and state when you use gas if you drive.

But here's the deal, whose money are you using to pay the tax with? If you are taking money from the government for welfare, food stamps, housing, and you don't work a day in your life, then you go buy something with the government money, and then pay state sales tax on it, did you pay tax or did you just take my money to pay tax to the government who took my money in the first place, to give to you, so you can give it back to them. If you didn't earn the money to pay the tax, you didn't pay the tax. I did.

I'll make it easy. I give you $20 to buy lunch. You pay for your lunch, tax and the tip with my $20. Did you pay tax? Or did I pay tax?

I was referring to the extremely wealthy, the inherited wealthy, not the upper middle class.

Who defines extremely wealthy? Is $250,000 extremely wealthy? Obama thinks so. How about $100,000? Bill Richardson thinks so. How about $75,000? How about $50,000? How about just anyone who has more than you?

The inherited wealthy? So can we single them out then and penalize them for the sins of their parents or grandparents who did the right thing and got rich? How many generations can we go back to punish those who got born into rich families?

What does it have to do with it? The claim is often made that the wealthy are self-made. Often, they are not. They didn't scrimp or slave away for their wealth, they were born into the right family.

So what? What does it matter to you or anyone else how people got their money as long as they got it legally and they didn't take it from me or you via government?

What person with an annual income of 10K can afford to invest half of it, unless they are still living in mommy and daddys home.

That was just a hypothetical with simple numbers. If you would like, substitute $100,000 and $50,000 if that makes it easier for you.

Estate tax. Another thread topic. Not in favor of it.

Nope. Not estate tax. Just taking everything you have upon your death so your kids get nothing. This is the only way we can prevent them from inheriting stuff they didn't EARN! We must stop people from getting money from their parents if they are going to be rich from it. But we can give all we want to people who didn't earn their money as long as the government does it, not the parents. The government will be your parents. They'll decide what's best for you.

Stop assuming. Ted was no friend of mine. I agree that the spoiled rich Hollywood crowd are hypocrites.

I await your response.

snowbird

04-03-2010, 20:33

"Envy should not be social policy." -G29Reload

+1

That's what the left does, promote class envy and hatred. The big lie of communism is that they'll give you stuff for free; all you have to do is be willing to kill some rich s.o.b.s.

Hopefully, what happens when the handouts stop is folks realize what's important, work (honestly) to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, and support and love their family, and cooperate with the rest of their community. And be content with what they have, like Jesus and Buddha said (much preferable than the war, famine, pestilence and misery that result from following what Mohammed and Marx said).

Hopefully, we can begin taking back our society come the November election.

tc556guy

04-03-2010, 22:00

I await your response.

You are not disenfranchised.
Not everyone pays Fed tax, but we all pay taxes of one sort or another. Denying people the vote means they are having THOSE taxes levied against them without a say, or taxation without representation.
I'd say that being in the top half percent of wage earners would be extremely wealthy. There'll be a definition that most people can agree would constitute being extremely wealthy.
People who inherit large amounts of wealth seem to have skewed ideas about wealth, for starters. I've already said that my comment was in response to the claim that wealthy people are self-made.
Your estate scenario isn't even worth responding to.

certifiedfunds

04-03-2010, 22:07

Healthcare - at the end of the day, why is it so expensive? Lot's of reasons. But a huge reason is that Insurance companies make IMMENSE profit by being allowed to deny service to those who paid for that very service. Lot's of other very important reasons - but that is one. No CEO of an insurance company made less money than last year. But less people got served, and more people went without. I have a friend who pays ALL of his medical costs with a huge deductible and got his rates raised by 50%. He was doing preventative maintenance on his dime. This guy can afford a lot of health care. But at some point even he's going to break. The "market is broken because of collusion in these industries: Insurance, Medicine, Law. That's not capitalim - that's controlling the market. and that causes problems.

Of all the reasons that healthcare is expensive, this is the most insignificant one.

- You only hear about the successes. Those are big and flashy and easy to cite. But the number of failures is large (it always would be anyway...) and it grows. Microsoft PAYS the government to be allowed to unethically, and illegally run a monopoly. It destroys competition and we all pay. Independent programmers can't succeed.

You pick an interesting example in Microsoft.......the way you describe it one might think that Microsoft just exists because it has simply always existed.

Yet, the truth is that Microsoft was founded when two kids outfoxed one of the most formidable companies in the world at the time: Big Blue

- This is not a reasonable argument on my part, just saying...Have you spent time seeing people "not trying" because the rewards are soooo big that it's just not worth it. I spent time unemployed last year - and my wife. Believe me. Unemployment wasn't a good thing!

Misery is relative.

You take a guy accustomed to having his own G5 and put him on a commercial flight and he's miserable.

You and your wife were uncomfortable on unemployment because you haven't been conditioned to accept subsistence as acceptable. We have a whole underclass of Americans that have been conditioned to accept just that.

And I have been in jobs that have brought me in contact with people busting their ass and not getting by, let alone getting ahead. And they weren't a bunch of 5 baby don't know who the daddy is spending foodstamps on beer and cigarettes people. Those exist. But it's 10%, not 90%.

And almost without exception those people have a lifetime of poor choices in their past. Many of them continue those choices.

Remember that we have lived in a country where an immigrant could come here penniless--often not even speaking the language-- and realize the "American Dream".

- Obama woke up one day and said "BwahahAhaHahHa - let's destroy capitalism!" Let's be real. No president ever woke up and said that. But they end up doing some dumbass things for I don't know why.

That's a naive view.

He didn't wake up one day. He spent a lifetime formulating his ideals.

People seek power because they seek control. Those who think and believe like Obama believe that they can make wiser use of resources than the owners of those resources.

certifiedfunds

04-03-2010, 22:19

first squelch amnesty. then vote out incumbents who don't vote conservative. then repeal this health care bill.

if we do our part it can be fixed a year from now.

If they push amnesty through, its game over.

emt1581

04-03-2010, 22:23

If they push amnesty through, its game over.

They won't call it amnesty though. See with this administration, if you change the name of something or eliminate the concept altogether, the problem/evil goes away!!

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds

04-03-2010, 22:31

If you are going to use education, where does it end? You have to have a PhD? Define "literate".
How hard is it? well, we all should contribute to the costs. I agree that there should be a flat tax, with everyone paying in, but to cover the costs of everything, you'd have to set the rate so high that you'd breaking the budgets of those barely getting by.

You base this on nothing factual. It is purely your own supposition.

Art Laffer calculates it at 12% IIRC.

Your problem is that you support the current ridiculous spending levels that require confiscatory tax rates.

The only "FAIR" tax is the one where every citizen pays the exact same dollar amount...even the same percentage is unfair! Bring spending down to the point that the revenue generated meets spending requirements.

I think it is unfair that some citizens get to live here without contributing an equal portion to the funding of the government. If we're all equal citizens in the eyes of the law, then tax law should be no different! Those who pay no taxes SHOULD be disenfranchised! They SHOULD be shamed! And if they continue to pay no taxes, they SHOULD be denied their rights via due process!

certifiedfunds

04-03-2010, 22:41

You know TC... I disagree with you vehemently on 99.375084% of your posts and I still disagree on this one but I do see your point and I appreciate your calm presentation.

No amount of sweet talking will get past his marxist love for progressive taxation.

Uncle Joe called them Useful Idiots.

certifiedfunds

04-03-2010, 22:46

Great point and I'll take it even further than that. There's guys on this thread crying about handouts who took money off my table and put it in their pockets for the last few rounds of rebates and what ever they called it. Some of the very people who are complaining the loudest here had no problem taking money from me that they didn't earn.

The people who were excluded in those rebates because they made too much were the ones who paid for it.

What rebates are you talking about?

Cash for clunkers?

Homebuyer incentive?

Oh, those folks who got the $600/$1,200 checks?

certifiedfunds

04-03-2010, 22:47

Thats an overly strict interpretation of taxpayer. By your thinking, there are a lot of farmers or other workers who would be stripped of their right to vote because they get subsidies.
I don't agree with any taxpayer requirement.

End the ****ing subsidies then.

certifiedfunds

04-03-2010, 22:57

Five per cent for a person living check to check absolutely hurts more than those who have tons of disposable income.

Ah, yes. Mr. Slippery Slope. :wavey:

If you are going to use education, where does it end? You have to have a PhD? Define "literate".
How hard is it? well, we all should contribute to the costs. I agree that there should be a flat tax, with everyone paying in, but to cover the costs of everything, you'd have to set the rate so high that you'd breaking the budgets of those barely getting by. So in some fashion, those of us who are productive would still be subsidizing those who don't make as much.
I don't agree with your thoughts on taxpayers vs non-taxpayers, just because you think some consume more than others. The determining sentiment should be that we all have a say in how our government is run, not on how much we can contribute to the running of that government. Otherwise, you disenfranchise a lot of people with no say in how things are run.

How much is "tons of disposable income"? Who decides? What happens if the government decides to manipulate that number to excessively tax one group or another?

For that matter, what business is it of my federal government's how much disposable income I have? How does the government determine what portion of my income is "disposable"? Shall I submit my income along with a detailed description of my personal expenditures for the year? What luxuries or comforts shall the government deem acceptable? What happens if my neighbor makes less money but spends more on frivolous luxuries? Should someone not paying federal taxes be allowed ANY luxuries or comforts?

As far as I can tell, you want us all to have equal rights but unequal responsibilities. Everyone gets to vote, only some get to hump it to pay the bills in this place.

If we're all equal, shouldn't we all shoulder the same load? Are some citizens special in that they should not be expected to carry a load lest they have their load carried by another?

certifiedfunds

04-03-2010, 23:01

A guy who is living check to check is stretching every dollar. A guy in a much hbigher income bracket may live in a better neighborhood, wear suits instead of uniforms, drive better cars, but in general they have more disposable income.

Unless they're in public service, that guy stretching the dollar needs to start pulling his load a little better.

certifiedfunds

04-03-2010, 23:15

You are not disenfranchised.
Not everyone pays Fed tax, but we all pay taxes of one sort or another. Denying people the vote means they are having THOSE taxes levied against them without a say, or taxation without representation.

You are incorrect. These people receive more in benefits than they pay out in taxes. They are not NET taxpayers.

I'd say that being in the top half percent of wage earners would be extremely wealthy. There'll be a definition that most people can agree would constitute being extremely wealthy.

Wages are not wealth. Wealth is not taxed in this country (until you die). Wages are.

And, further, the problem with your entire thought process is embodied in this statement. "Most people" is describing Tyranny of the Majority. When 51% of wage earners decide that the 49% of those who earn more than them are "Extremely Wealthy", then, guess who is now considered "Extremely Wealthy" by the government and subject to disproportionate taxation.

People who inherit large amounts of wealth seem to have skewed ideas about wealth, for starters. I've already said that my comment was in response to the claim that wealthy people are self-made.

Frankly, that's none of your business. Someone, somewhere earned that money. It was theirs to do with as they see fit. They could choose to spend it, donate it or leave it to their heirs.

.....

kirgi08

04-04-2010, 01:06

Of all the reasons that healthcare is expensive, this is the most insignificant one.

You pick an interesting example in Microsoft.......the way you describe it one might think that Microsoft just exists because it has simply always existed.

Yet, the truth is that Microsoft was founded when two kids outfoxed one of the most formidable companies in the world at the time: Big Blue

Misery is relative.

You take a guy accustomed to having his own G5 and put him on a commercial flight and he's miserable.

You and your wife were uncomfortable on unemployment because you haven't been conditioned to accept subsistence as acceptable. We have a whole underclass of Americans that have been conditioned to accept just that.

And almost without exception those people have a lifetime of poor choices in their past. Many of them continue those choices.

Remember that we have lived in a country where an immigrant could come here penniless--often not even speaking the language-- and realize the "American Dream".

That's a naive view.

He didn't wake up one day. He spent a lifetime formulating his ideals.

People seek power because they seek control. Those who think and believe like Obama believe that they can make wiser use of resources than the owners of those resources.

Outstanding.'08.

lawman800

04-04-2010, 12:25

Yep, sometimes, you just gotta let it go. A socialist is a socialist and won't quit until everyone is equally miserable.

Marine8541

04-04-2010, 12:35

What rebates are you talking about?

Cash for clunkers?

Homebuyer incentive?

Oh, those folks who got the $600/$1,200 checks?

Any rebate that takes money from one class, in this case a tax bracket to give to another is totally wrong and misguided and I don't care how noble the cause is.

If anyone has cashed one of those rebate checks that I paid for and wasn't eligible to receive one myself because I make too much, then they're a total and complete hypocrite and fraud when it comes to complaining about taxes.

certifiedfunds

04-04-2010, 14:15

Any rebate that takes money from one class, in this case a tax bracket to give to another is totally wrong and misguided and I don't care how noble the cause is.

If anyone has cashed one of those rebate checks that I paid for and wasn't eligible to receive one myself because I make too much, then they're a total and complete hypocrite and fraud when it comes to complaining about taxes.

Agreed. Just sounded like you were talking about someone or something in particular.

certifiedfunds

04-04-2010, 14:17

Yep, sometimes, you just gotta let it go. A socialist is a socialist and won't quit until everyone is equally miserable.

When tc55guy comes out with his marxist dribble, I just can't let it go.

lawman800

04-05-2010, 01:17

I've realized a long time ago that a liberal cannot be reasoned with. They do not think like a normal person, even when you point out the inherent hypocrisy and lack of logic in anything they say, they will disregard it anyway and just tell you anecdotes or that it just has to be that way and if you don't agree, you are racist, homophobe, stupid, ignorant, etc.

certifiedfunds

04-05-2010, 06:04

Real, classic liberals I have no quarrel with. Marxist/Progressives and useful idiots make my head explode. In this case we're talking dimwit on top of it.

lawman800

04-05-2010, 07:28

Dimwit that thinks he's smart... which is worse.

G29Reload

04-05-2010, 10:28

Real, classic liberals I have no quarrel with.

You really ought to give that up. Debating in a public forum means making yourself understood. The frame of reference for your use of the word is a dis-used antiquity that only serves to confuse. NO ONE applies it in the way that you mean and the modern parlance of the word liberal only invokes the vision of the Nancy Pelosi Progressive Marxist Statist use of the word, not the 3 time evolved George Washington use of it that only you and a handful of college professors do. Get with the right century and make yourself understood...when you are, you're deadly in our defense.

Glock-it-to-me

04-05-2010, 10:34

anarchy

certifiedfunds

04-05-2010, 17:05

You really ought to give that up. Debating in a public forum means making yourself understood. The frame of reference for your use of the word is a dis-used antiquity that only serves to confuse. NO ONE applies it in the way that you mean and the modern parlance of the word liberal only invokes the vision of the Nancy Pelosi Progressive Marxist Statist use of the word, not the 3 time evolved George Washington use of it that only you and a handful of college professors do. Get with the right century and make yourself understood...when you are, you're deadly in our defense.

I prefer to be accurate. Its time folks start thinking beyond the first level of our political lexicon.

I watched you go after a non-Progressive, non-Statist, maximum liberty liberal just recently. I think its important that we know how to distinguish between our friends and our enemies.

G29Reload

04-05-2010, 17:26

I prefer to be accurate.

You're not being accurate. If no one but you understands it, you're talking to yourself. If you use the antiquated meaning in modern times, you're invoking an anachronism. Again, you only serve to confuse.

I think its important that we know how to distinguish between our friends and our enemies.

Then stop confusing everyone by forcing them to disambiguate an antiquity. Accepted common usage for liberal in this day and age, as its commonly understood is the Nancy Pelosi variety. The word has been so thoroughly polluted that it may never again gain acceptance. Most find it nauseating, even liberals themselve who are now seeking cover under "progressive", ALSO making me want to puke.

G29Reload

04-05-2010, 17:35

I watched you go after a non-Progressive, non-Statist, maximum liberty liberal just recently. I think its important that we know how to distinguish between our friends and our enemies.

Who made it difficult to identify by calling himself an anachronism, then proceeded to digress like a drunk at a cocktail party, while making a thread about how it might just be better to not have weapons in a SHTF because it might be dangerous or someone might get hurt, just the type of thing that anachronism in MODERN parlance might advocate.

No apology.

We need to be singing from the same hymnal.

btfire

04-05-2010, 20:11

If anyone has cashed one of those rebate checks that I paid for and wasn't eligible to receive one myself because I make too much, then they're a total and complete hypocrite and fraud when it comes to complaining about taxes.
I cashed my first time homebuyers check this year. Once I add that check to my income tax refund I almost broke even. I took that check and I used it well and that money was mine, not yours. Now, I am quite sure there are plenty of people who have not ever paid 8K in taxes that also received that money, but I can assure you I am not one of them.

certifiedfunds

04-05-2010, 21:18

I cashed my first time homebuyers check this year. Once I add that check to my income tax refund I almost broke even. I took that check and I used it well and that money was mine, not yours. Now, I am quite sure there are plenty of people who have not ever paid 8K in taxes that also received that money, but I can assure you I am not one of them.

Everyone who receives an incentive check or rebate check from the government feels the same way.

Marine8541

04-05-2010, 22:08

I cashed my first time homebuyers check this year. Once I add that check to my income tax refund I almost broke even. I took that check and I used it well and that money was mine, not yours. Now, I am quite sure there are plenty of people who have not ever paid 8K in taxes that also received that money, but I can assure you I am not one of them.

It's must be OK if you did it then....

ANY rebate that anyone gets that everyone isn't eligible for is socialism. To be eligible for the rebate err tax credit you have to make less than 75K for a single filer or 125K for a joint filer. So who do you think paid for that rebate? The poor? No not the poor. The middle class? No not them because you already said you almost broke even. Oh, it was me and the nice check that I and then my company wrote to Uncle Sam.

Anyone who takes one of these rebates where others are not eligible for because they make too much money then cries about the socialist leanings of our Government is being hypocritical.

racerford

04-05-2010, 23:10

Everyone who receives an incentive check or rebate check from the government feels the same way.

And some are are correct.

I didn't receive one in the last round of checks due to income level. I did receive one a few years back when there was no income limit.

Since I pay more in income taxes than the median US household income. I am quite confident I pay more than my fair share, and some of several other peoples. I pay a lot more in taxes and yet get no more say in what is done with it than the guy who not only pays nothing , but still gets money back from the government. So whatever pittance the government occasionally decides to give back to me, I have more than earned, and yes it is mine.

I would be a lot happier about them taking my money by force, if they gave me a say in what it went for. Let me chose a percentage of my taxes to go to the various government agencies. Make a list of them and what their percent of the prior years budget was, then leave blanks for what percentage of our taxes we would like to see go to each. Kind of like what the United Way lets you do now. Medicare and and Social security would not be on the list, as they have their own separate taxes, and they need to live within their budget. Change the eligibilty, payouts, whatever they need to do to live in their budget.

I might give 40% to the military, 10 percent to the federal courts, 10% to federal law enforcement. 35 percent to debt retirement and leave the rest to the other agencies.

Oh and no more deficit spending except in times of declared war. Many people took a paycut last year, they should cut government workers pay too, or lay some of them off. Why is it OK for them to spend my money so freely? Why should government employees be immune from market forces?

Sorry to go so far afield in my rant.

lawman800

04-06-2010, 00:11

Yep, when Bush did his first stimulus, my check was prorated down to almost nothing. Personally, I think it was a retarded idea to take everyone's money to give back to those that didn't pay and those that paid the most, couldn't get it back or got back less than those who didn't put in.

I don't want anything from the government. I never expected anything from the government. Everything I got, I did on my own (along with my family) but I am not going to sit on my butt waiting for handouts.

kirgi08

04-06-2010, 00:28

I RTSed my check.'08.

btfire

04-07-2010, 10:02

It's must be OK if you did it then....

ANY rebate that anyone gets that everyone isn't eligible for is socialism. To be eligible for the rebate err tax credit you have to make less than 75K for a single filer or 125K for a joint filer. So who do you think paid for that rebate? The poor? No not the poor. The middle class? No not them because you already said you almost broke even. Oh, it was me and the nice check that I and then my company wrote to Uncle Sam.

Anyone who takes one of these rebates where others are not eligible for because they make too much money then cries about the socialist leanings of our Government is being hypocritical.
Dude, you did not pay for my rebate, it was money I had already paid in in 2008/09. Once you add my income tax from there together, subtract my income tax returns and add the 8K credit, I still paid money INTO the tax system. So, please explain how it was YOUR money. Sure, if you track a single dollar bill through the computers it might be, but I pay plenty of taxes and get very little back. So, my getting back 8K of my own money, call it what you will.
Get the fairtax in and we can all stop complaining.

inzone

04-07-2010, 20:42

the mother of all fire sales....I beleive we are likely to see pennies on the dollar for social security, most pensions and most govt transfer payments...i think it will get very ugly....

certifiedfunds

04-07-2010, 22:15

Dude, you did not pay for my rebate, it was money I had already paid in in 2008/09. Once you add my income tax from there together, subtract my income tax returns and add the 8K credit, I still paid money INTO the tax system. So, please explain how it was YOUR money. Sure, if you track a single dollar bill through the computers it might be, but I pay plenty of taxes and get very little back. So, my getting back 8K of my own money, call it what you will.
Get the fairtax in and we can all stop complaining.

There are those who pay into the system and then there are those who pay net into the system.

MOST times, first time home buyers are the former, but not the latter.

This plan was just another redistribution of wealth.

lawman800

04-08-2010, 01:32

Fair tax? Like the 20% VAT on top of everything else?

Marine8541

04-08-2010, 07:52

Dude, you did not pay for my rebate, it was money I had already paid in in 2008/09. Once you add my income tax from there together, subtract my income tax returns and add the 8K credit, I still paid money INTO the tax system. So, please explain how it was YOUR money. Sure, if you track a single dollar bill through the computers it might be, but I pay plenty of taxes and get very little back. So, my getting back 8K of my own money, call it what you will.
Get the fairtax in and we can all stop complaining.

A fair tax will never happen because there's too many people like you who benefit from tax breaks and rebates that NOT EVERYONE is eligible for. What do ypou call the political system where the government redistributes the wealth?

Almost everyone on this board claims to be a true fiscal conservative until it comes time to cash the check, you prove that rule.

lawman800

04-08-2010, 07:54

I qualify for certain breaks but I would gladly give all that up for just being taxed fairly. I have no problems with it. Student loan interest, mortgage interest, whatever. Keep the deductions, give me back my money.

ICARRY2

04-15-2010, 20:07

You base this on nothing factual. It is purely your own supposition.

Art Laffer calculates it at 12% IIRC.

Your problem is that you support the current ridiculous spending levels that require confiscatory tax rates.

The only "FAIR" tax is the one where every citizen pays the exact same dollar amount...even the same percentage is unfair! Bring spending down to the point that the revenue generated meets spending requirements.

I think it is unfair that some citizens get to live here without contributing an equal portion to the funding of the government. If we're all equal citizens in the eyes of the law, then tax law should be no different! Those who pay no taxes SHOULD be disenfranchised! They SHOULD be shamed! And if they continue to pay no taxes, they SHOULD be denied their rights via due process!

The Fair Tax is the way to go.

Instead of, "No taxation without representation",
the motto should be "No representation without taxation".

Everyone should pay their fair share.

Is the 12% tax, income or sales?

lawman800

04-15-2010, 21:31

Income, I assume. There is no national sales tax unless you count the 18.9 cent per gallon excise on gasoline.

certifiedfunds

04-15-2010, 22:47

The Fair Tax is the way to go.

Instead of, "No taxation without representation",
the motto should be "No representation without taxation".

Everyone should pay their fair share.

Is the 12% tax, income or sales?

It was income. And the rate was the same for corporations.

tc556guy

04-18-2010, 18:05

When tc55guy comes out with his marxist dribble, I just can't let it go.

My commentary is neither Marxist nor dribble. You simply assign those labels because thats the only comeback you are able to muster.

certifiedfunds

04-18-2010, 19:46

And some are are correct.

I didn't receive one in the last round of checks due to income level. I did receive one a few years back when there was no income limit.

Since I pay more in income taxes than the median US household income. I am quite confident I pay more than my fair share, and some of several other peoples. I pay a lot more in taxes and yet get no more say in what is done with it than the guy who not only pays nothing , but still gets money back from the government. So whatever pittance the government occasionally decides to give back to me, I have more than earned, and yes it is mine.

ANYTIME an honest-to-goodness net taxpayer gets some of his money back from the government, it is a good thing.

However with some 50% of the population not paying any income taxes and many if not most rebates/refunds, etc, having income limitations, that is generally not the case, as we all know.

MOST first time homebuyers receiving the tax credit discussed earlier are not net taxpayers.

certifiedfunds

04-18-2010, 19:47

My commentary is neither Marxist nor dribble. You simply assign those labels because thats the only comeback you are able to muster.

You repeatedly support redistribution of wealth, progressive taxation and majority-rule unfettered democracy without regard for Constitutional limitations. That is Marxist. I was kinda hoping it would've sunk in by now.

The "dribble" bit.....that's just my opinion based on the weak intellect reflected in many of your posts.

lawman800

04-18-2010, 20:30

You are not disenfranchised.
Not everyone pays Fed tax, but we all pay taxes of one sort or another. Denying people the vote means they are having THOSE taxes levied against them without a say, or taxation without representation.
I'd say that being in the top half percent of wage earners would be extremely wealthy. There'll be a definition that most people can agree would constitute being extremely wealthy.
People who inherit large amounts of wealth seem to have skewed ideas about wealth, for starters. I've already said that my comment was in response to the claim that wealthy people are self-made.
Your estate scenario isn't even worth responding to.

So... let's turn this back on you since it seems that socialism is always for the people, but not the socialist.

How much do you give away to the masses? How much disposable income do you have? Do you have more than 1 car? Do you enjoy luxuries that the masses do not? What do you do in your own life to promote the socialist agenda that you espouse here? Do you make sure others have what you have before you keep your own wealth to enjoy? Did you take any inheritances that you didn't earn and spend it on yourself?

Do you really live the way you talk or are you a hypocrite like all other socialists that want everyone to suffer but yet live it up and act just like the capitalists that they abhor?

At least have the courage of your convictions to answer these questions that you live the way you talk. Otherwise, you are just like Rosie O'Donnell, Diane Feinstein, Al Gore, Carmen Diaz, Barack Obama, and all the other hypocrites that say one thing but do another.

G29Reload

04-18-2010, 21:44

There is no national sales tax unless you count the 18.9 cent per gallon excise on gasoline.

Keep going.

There is an excise tax on the sale of tires.

There is an excise tax on the sale of guns, ammo and archery equipment.

There is probably more, but those I know off the top of my head.

At least the guns, ammo and archery tax from the Pittman-Robertson act of the 1930's sends most of it to wildlife sanctuaries to preserve our hunting lands.

lawman800

04-18-2010, 21:54

Keep going.

There is an excise tax on the sale of tires.

There is an excise tax on the sale of guns, ammo and archery equipment.

There is probably more, but those I know off the top of my head.

At least the guns, ammo and archery tax from the Pittman-Robertson act of the 1930's sends most of it to wildlife sanctuaries to preserve our hunting lands.

True. Then again, how often do you buy guns, tires, and other stuff compared to how much you buy gas? How about the average joe who is not into guns or archery equipment?

cadillacguns

04-21-2010, 07:08

One word D E T R O I T.

MSNBC did a expo on what was a city turned crapbox, who did it, who took the nice brick built houses and trashed them, who runs rampant about the city riddled with drugs? 70% kids dont finish school, crime is out of control. Who takes the gubmint $ from welfare to public office?

"Obamians" thats who...........Anarchy in my lifetime/?You betcha!
Life as we knew it for our children and grandchildren?

No way Jose!

lawman800

04-21-2010, 09:16

The time is close, my friends.

tc556guy

04-21-2010, 12:53

So... let's turn this back on you since it seems that socialism is always for the people, but not the socialist.

How much do you give away to the masses? How much disposable income do you have? Do you have more than 1 car? Do you enjoy luxuries that the masses do not? What do you do in your own life to promote the socialist agenda that you espouse here? Do you make sure others have what you have before you keep your own wealth to enjoy? Did you take any inheritances that you didn't earn and spend it on yourself?

Do you really live the way you talk or are you a hypocrite like all other socialists that want everyone to suffer but yet live it up and act just like the capitalists that they abhor?

At least have the courage of your convictions to answer these questions that you live the way you talk. Otherwise, you are just like Rosie O'Donnell, Diane Feinstein, Al Gore, Carmen Diaz, Barack Obama, and all the other hypocrites that say one thing but do another.
I work for what I have.
Just because you want to dismiss my comments as socialist doesn't mean that I am one.

tc556guy

04-21-2010, 12:57

You repeatedly support redistribution of wealth, progressive taxation and majority-rule unfettered democracy without regard for Constitutional limitations. That is Marxist. I was kinda hoping it would've sunk in by now.

The "dribble" bit.....that's just my opinion based on the weak intellect reflected in many of your posts.

Yes, I believe that a progressive tax is workable and justified, within reason. I don't agree that the top rate should be anywhere near the high rates of other nations. A few per centage points higher, yes.

Where have I supported redistribution of wealth? I believe that people should work and contribute when and where they are physically able to do so.

As for majority rule, you must be talking about voting. Yup, I don't support stripping people of their right to vote under any pretense, whether it be ethnic, financial, educational, etc. Thats a very slippery slope.

None of which makes me anything close to a Marxist, and if you think it does, then its not my posts that are weak intellectually.

emt1581

04-21-2010, 14:47

Not sure if I asked this before or not but...have they ever taken "handouts" away in any place/country?

I'm talking welfare, soc. security, incentives/rebates....or their equivalent in their respective country... If so, what was the reaction of the people depending on those handouts?

See IMO, welfare is a small price to pay so the lower scum of society doesn't become overly violent with the people actually working for a living. Ironically, it seems to breed a socio-economic population OF criminals. Seriously, how many housing projects do you know of where drugs, prostitution, violence, etc...isn't rampant and the people occupying them are honest, decent, and otherwise hard working individuals who were just dealt a crappy hand?? I can't speak for everywhere but where I live it just isn't the case. There are 4th and 5th generation gov. cheese eaters who have ZERO motivation/reason to move and get a job.

I'm just curious if those people have ever had the rug pulled out from under them by the government/society and if so...what happened?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

JKDGabe

04-21-2010, 14:53

Yes, I believe that a progressive tax is workable and justified...

None of which makes me anything close to a Marxist, and if you think it does, then its not my posts that are weak intellectually.

Progressive taxation is the second of ten planks in the communist manifesto.

G29Reload

04-21-2010, 19:34

You seem unclear on the concepts. Confused perhaps? First you say:

See IMO, welfare is a small price to pay so the lower scum of society doesn't become overly violent with the people actually working for a living.

Why should we have to pay them ANYTHING? Behave or go to jail, period! I don't live within the law because someone pays me.

Ironically, it seems to breed a socio-economic population OF criminals. Seriously, how many housing projects do you know of where drugs, prostitution, violence, etc...isn't rampant
-Emt1581

I would guess this is not a "small price to pay", is it? I'd say its fairly large in its consequence, and an abominable mistake. It is the RESULT of welfare which created the environment, NOT prevented it!

So, all in all, its a stupid idea. No one owes anyone else a living.

emt1581

04-21-2010, 19:52

You seem unclear on the concepts. Confused perhaps? First you say:

Why should we have to pay them ANYTHING? Behave or go to jail, period! I don't live within the law because someone pays me.

I would guess this is not a "small price to pay", is it? I'd say its fairly large in its consequence, and an abominable mistake. It is the RESULT of welfare which created the environment, NOT prevented it!

So, all in all, its a stupid idea. No one owes anyone else a living.

What would you say I'm confused about....you said "first" but there was no contradicting statement cited. :dunno:

Doing the math, with that "go to jail" mentality, while I agree with you, I'm not sure if it'd be possible to house even 50% of people who live in projects in jails/prisons. Maybe it is. I really don't know. I can say I've never heard any politician around here or in Washington say they are going to do anything about the welfare system where people can just live forever on it.

Now you said that welfare created the environment. Again, yes, but we're here now...how can it effectively be dealt with without a civil war?

I'm still curious if it's happened anywhere else and what happened? Was there a civil/class war? Did people become un-lazy overnight and get jobs to support themselves?

I mean this is a culture that doesn't have much skill. Hell they aren't even that great at being criminals since most of them have records. They really are just a drain on the system. I won't go the way of Shaw and say they should be killed but I think their comfort level and entitlement should go waaaayyy down.

-Emt1581

j-glock22

04-21-2010, 20:14

I spent 2 months of my life in the former Soviet Union deep into the heart of the country (down near the Black Sea) 70 years of Communism/Socialism and the aftermath of the collapse of it, it is heartbreaking to see what was left. It will be us if things don't turn around for us very very soon, and its not just govt and rich thugs, but us ourselves as well.

emt1581

04-21-2010, 20:23

I spent 2 months of my life in the former Soviet Union deep into the heart of the country (down near the Black Sea) 70 years of Communism/Socialism and the aftermath of the collapse of it, it is heartbreaking to see what was left. It will be us if things don't turn around for us very very soon, and its not just govt and rich thugs, but us ourselves as well.

I see where you're coming from and it does sound like a crappy place to have been. But it seems like in the S&P forum there's a constant sense of "the sky is going to fall"...but it never happens.

I'm not saying "bring it on!", but this perpetual sense of impending doom seems less credible each day...because the situation just never gets that out of hand. It's always things being done now that have the potential to screw us up...down the road. And our government/administration has a knack for making the rules up as they go along. It's almost like fantasy writers. If they want something to happen....it happens.

So on one hand you have Chicken Littles running around and on the other you have politicians living in a fantasy world that they seem to control. :dunno:

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds

04-21-2010, 20:31

Yes, I believe that a progressive tax is workable and justified, within reason. I don't agree that the top rate should be anywhere near the high rates of other nations. A few per centage points higher, yes.

Where have I supported redistribution of wealth? I believe that people should work and contribute when and where they are physically able to do so.

Progressive taxation IS redistribution of wealth.

As for majority rule, you must be talking about voting. Yup, I don't support stripping people of their right to vote under any pretense, whether it be ethnic, financial, educational, etc. Thats a very slippery slope.

Majority rule and voting are not the same thing. Majority rule is tyranny. A smart guy like you should know that we live in a Constitutional republic.

None of which makes me anything close to a Marxist, and if you think it does, then its not my posts that are weak intellectually.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.............

You have dozens if not more posts on GT professing marxist/socialist beliefs -- and defending them when challenged. Your above comments simply reinforce the marxist/socialist label, which is quite funny.

certifiedfunds

04-21-2010, 20:32

Progressive taxation is the second of ten planks in the communist manifesto.

This is why the term "Useful Idiot" applies so well.

Uncle Joe knew exactly who they were.

fnfalguy

04-21-2010, 20:38

When 47% of people pay no taxes, I can't see how this can be sustained.

mitchshrader

04-21-2010, 20:48

I don't support income taxes. I support the HECK out of UNEARNED income taxes.

A person shouldn't be deprived of the fruits of their labor, but they should pay a slice for the legal and social mechanisms which transfer unearned income.

I believe in excise taxes as appropriate to deter and defray predatory foreign business practices, and NO other reason suffices. I believe in inheritance taxes, VERY so, as death and taxes will always be with us, let's combine 'em.

I believe in taxes on lottery winnings, large gifts, and any other UNEARNED income. I can stand sales taxes, as a mechanism to finance local and state governments. I can tolerate a simple flat tax for those who prosper in a free system. I have no problem with 'soaking the rich' as long as you aren't trying to get their deserved compensation for their labors. 25% YACHT tax doesn't bother me one bit. Nor do high rates of estate taxation on large estates, near confiscatory.. but that same large estate should be able to be distributed according to the wishes of the deceased owner, BEFORE tax, and tax paid by the RECEPIENTS of said UNEARNED income. With whatever loopholes and minimum amounts that society agrees on.

I think taxing the person receiving unearned income is the least tyranny possible with any form of taxation. I think small sales taxes and excise taxes are liveable with, and even for minimal necessary government SOME finance mechanism is required.

But EARNED income tax on the face of it is counter productive. ANY earned income tax. And social security should be strictly voluntary, with distribution of benefits limited to funds on hand.

Of course, as a lifelong liberal, I don't expect much agreement here.

certifiedfunds

04-21-2010, 20:54

By none other than Marx, himself. In red, because it is so appropriate.

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

G29Reload

04-21-2010, 22:07

What would you say I'm confused about....you said "first" but there was no contradicting statement cited.

So, you don't see any contradiction in first saying that it's "a small price to pay for welfare so the scum of the earth don't become violent", then turn around and bemoan that its ironic that that welfare breeds a socio-economic population of criminals? (who by definition are also violent)

I'd say there's nothing ironic about it.

It's either a small price, or the large price of a criminal underclass...which is it?

I say the latter.

emt1581

04-21-2010, 22:19

So, you don't see any contradiction in first saying that it's "a small price to pay for welfare so the scum of the earth don't become violent", then turn around and bemoan that its ironic that that welfare breeds a socio-economic population of criminals? (who by definition are also violent)

I'd say there's nothing ironic about it.

It's either a small price, or the large price of a criminal underclass...which is it?

I say the latter.

I said OVERLY violent. They're already scum and part of that means being criminal, lazy, and/or violent.

Really, there's no correlation. A) is that we are paying so they don't become, IMO, more/overly violent against those who are wealthier/hard working. B) is that they are scum who are comprised of a subculture of criminals. But A doesn't cause or really relate to B in any way. Just two variables that happen to exist in the same equation. My question has always been, what happens when that welfare/handouts just...stop? Where has it happened before? What did the scum do?

-Emt1581

G29Reload

04-21-2010, 22:21

I don't support income taxes. I support the HECK out of UNEARNED income taxes.

There's no such thing. "Unearned" is a moniker wrongfully applied to all income not derived from direct labor.

Bank interest paid is called unearned.

In the real world, income is either earned, or stolen. The only "unearned" income is that which you stole.

Why should you be punished for investing, or directing the fruits of your labor, whether shunting a portion of your check towards savings that earns interest, or purchasing a lotto ticket? How I spend my money is none of anyone elses business, unless you're pushing govt by jealousy and class envy.

Ooooh ohhhh....he won a lot of money chancing his OWN HARD EARNED MONEY to buying a lotto ticket and he won! It's not fair that EVERYONE didn't win, so lets take it from him!

Who wanted to share in the financial risk he took when he also has bills to pay and risked that money on the lotto ticket? Where was everyone THEN? Nowhere to be found...didn't want any part of it till success happens...

G29Reload

04-21-2010, 22:24

I said OVERLY violent.

Who CARES! You're engaging in semantics by degree.

You either think its good to give people welfare, or you don't because you're creating a criminal underclass. Make up your mind.

emt1581

04-21-2010, 22:33

Who CARES! You're engaging in semantics by degree.

You either think its good to give people welfare, or you don't because you're creating a criminal underclass. Make up your mind.

You picked something that no one else seemed to have any gripes about and then scrutinized it so it created contradiction for the sake of debate/argument. I've seen you do this more than once. It's cool to debate things when someone is actually looking for a good debate. I'm not. I shared my opinion and then asked for examples (situations/names of places).

If it matters, I disagree with welfare. However, I feel that society as a whole has neutered themselves into believing we need to appease the lower scum of society so they won't hurt/disturb us. Sort of like a shake-down or giving a bully your lunch money. In both cases, appeasing the aggressor/enemy just prolongs the problem and encourages the bad behavior.

-Emt1581

G29Reload

04-21-2010, 22:42

I have no problem with 'soaking the rich' as long as you aren't trying to get their deserved compensation for their labors.

Its ALL deserved. Who are you to say its not?

It is only undeserved if its stolen. If so, call law enforcement. Everything beyond that is none of your business.

25% YACHT tax doesn't bother me one bit.

Didn't bother a lot of folks when it was first tried, till it was repealed when it was found to have nearly destroyed an industry and put a lot of laborers out of work. The folks who could afford them stopped buying them here and just shopped overseas, employing foreigners. Till it was repealed of course.

Nor do high rates of estate taxation on large estates, near confiscatory..

Confiscatory...are we um...punishing these people for something, like their success?

but that same large estate should be able to be distributed according to the wishes of the deceased owner,

You took away all his wishes when you confiscated his estate...suddenly you care about his feelings? Make up your mind. Unless he stole his money, why do you hate him so much? You really need to get a grip on your envy problem. All that hate is gonna burn you up kid.

tax paid by the RECEPIENTS of said UNEARNED income. With whatever loopholes and minimum amounts that society agrees on.

What a confused abortion this plan is. Huge estate owners can be a rare breed. How would a person who inherits such a huge piece of ground even know that all of sudden he has to come up with money he might not have? The wishes will be violated because the recipient won't get the property. He'll have to sell it to pay the taxes!

I think taxing the person receiving unearned income is the least tyranny possible with any form of taxation.

Its the most tyrannical of all, because its based on greed and envy for something someone else earned and you didn't. As opposed to logic and an equitable assessment.

G29Reload

04-21-2010, 22:47

You picked something that no one else seemed to have any gripes about and then scrutinized it so it created contradiction for the sake of debate/argument.

I clearly quoted what you said and created nothing...the contradiction is yours for all to see.

First you say welfare's good to prevent people from getting violent, then scratch your head at the irony of welfare creating a violent criminal underclass. Its' one or the other, unless you enjoy creating that underclass.

Not my words, yours.

emt1581

04-21-2010, 22:53

I clearly quoted what you said and created nothing...the contradiction is yours for all to see.

First you say welfare's good to prevent people from getting violent, then scratch your head at the irony of welfare creating a violent criminal underclass. Its' one or the other, unless you enjoy creating that underclass.

Not my words, yours.

I'm questioning why you are hanging onto and using my words? Again, this isn't a debate. I shared my opinion of the situation (welfare), please feel free to share your opinion of the situation. BTW, I never said "welfare's good". I said it's a small price to pay.

How about giving some of the examples I asked for. I'm guessing you just haven't gotten to that part yet.

-Emt1581

G29Reload

04-21-2010, 23:00

BTW, I never said "welfare's good". I said it's a small price to pay.

Till the irony of it being a large price to pay for creating a criminal underclass. Again, which is it?

I'm trying to get past your confusion and figure out what it is you really believe.

I say its a large price to pay that shouldnt' be paid, it creates problems instead of solving them. WELFARE IS NOT A SMALL PRICE TO PAY. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

The handouts can stop any time and if they want to riot, throw em in jail. And dont' even think about coming to my neighborhood...what 12ga was designed for.

emt1581

04-21-2010, 23:04

Till the irony of it being a large price to pay for creating a criminal underclass. Again, which is it?

I'm trying to get past your confusion and figure out what it is you really believe.

I say its a large price to pay that shouldnt' be paid, it creates problems instead of solving them. WELFARE IS NOT A SMALL PRICE TO PAY. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

The handouts can stop any time and if they want to riot, throw em in jail. And dont' even think about coming to my neighborhood...what 12ga was designed for.

Woah! Ok..ok...it's a large price to pay!! :wow:

Now do you have any examples?

-Emt1581

G29Reload

04-21-2010, 23:24

Now do you have any examples?

Of welfare failing? That arguments long been won.

The Johnson Administration's failed Great Society would be a good snapshot.

Of welfare being rolled back? Some good examples surprisingly came out of the Clinton admin, welfare to work program and 5 year limit on welfare.

Suddenly a whole lot of people had to start working. Amazing.

emt1581

04-21-2010, 23:27

Of welfare failing? That arguments long been won.

The Johnson Administration's failed Great Society would be a good snapshot.

No, not of welfare failing. Examples of the government or the people taking welfare away from those that receive it.

See it seems like the vast majority of governments have gone the other way of giving MORE handouts to the lazy instead of reducing them or eliminating them altogether.

-Emt1581

tc556guy

04-22-2010, 06:39

Progressive taxation is the second of ten planks in the communist manifesto.

Just because a concept is stolen by a particular organization that you don't agree with as a talking point doesn't mean that the concept itself is bad. Repressive regimes all over the world give lip service in their documents to various freedoms; just because they do, are those concepts invalidated because of the source professing to follow them? No.

tc556guy

04-22-2010, 06:42

When 47% of people pay no taxes, I can't see how this can be sustained.

Except that that figure is erroneous. Almost everyone pays taxes of some sort.
Txes on food, on clothing, on gas, on purchases of all sorts. Income tax only constitutes a third of federal revenue.

tc556guy

04-22-2010, 06:46

Progressive taxation IS redistribution of wealth.

No, its not. Its recognizing that that individual can pay a greater share of the general tax burdern.

Majority rule and voting are not the same thing. Majority rule is tyranny. A smart guy like you should know that we live in a Constitutional republic.
I am aware of the type of government we have. There are plenty of threads where people try to justify taking the right to vote away from groups whose views they don't agree with. THAT is tyranny.

You have dozens if not more posts on GT professing marxist/socialist beliefs -- and defending them when challenged. Your above comments simply reinforce the marxist/socialist label, which is quite funny.

No, I don't. So standing up for the right to vote makes one a Marxist? I'd hate to live in any nation you had a hand in running. I don't imagine you'd be much for personal freedoms you didn't agree with.

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 06:48

Just because a concept is stolen by a particular organization that you don't agree with as a talking point doesn't mean that the concept itself is bad. Repressive regimes all over the world give lip service in their documents to various freedoms; just because they do, are those concepts invalidated because of the source professing to follow them? No.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Its not as though Marx couldn't fit it in the top 10. Its #2 on the list!

How else are you going to implement: "From each according to his means, to each accorcing to his needs"

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 06:50

Except that that figure is erroneous. Almost everyone pays taxes of some sort.
Txes on food, on clothing, on gas, on purchases of all sorts. Income tax only constitutes a third of federal revenue.

47% of people pay no income tax.

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 06:59

No, its not. Its recognizing that that individual can pay a greater share of the general tax burdern.

Yes it is.

The tax bill is X. As a citizen with equal protection under the law and equal rights, you have an equal obligation to fund the government. However, Progressive Taxation takes YOUR share of the federal tax burden from you and puts it on another.

That is redistributive.

And it doesn't even take into account social programs with direct redistribution that are funded with the taxes.

I am aware of the type of government we have. There are plenty of threads where people try to justify taking the right to vote away from groups whose views they don't agree with. THAT is tyranny.

Apparently you aren't.

There has been thread after thread where you maintain that whatever the majority votes for shall be the law. That whomever the majority votes for may make whatever law they choose. That is not the form of government we're supposed to have......not the form the states agreed to. In practice, yes. However, the Constitution provides for our government and it does not provide for simple majority rule.

Unfettered democracy is the tool of dictators. Just ask Chavez.

And for the record: The threads you refer to didn't advocate taking votes away from people they agree with. They advocated only allowing those who actually pay the bills in this country the exclusive right to decide how the government is run.

No, I don't. So standing up for the right to vote makes one a Marxist? I'd hate to live in any nation you had a hand in running. I don't imagine you'd be much for personal freedoms you didn't agree with.

Again, there is thread after thread of you defending Marxist principles. Mostly having to do with unfettered democracy and redistributive policies.

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 07:07

Except that that figure is erroneous. Almost everyone pays taxes of some sort.
Txes on food, on clothing, on gas, on purchases of all sorts. Income tax only constitutes a third of federal revenue.

45% 1/3 would be 33.333%

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii123/jeffmot/Taxchart.gif

And when you factor in the EITC, the folks who pay no federal income tax actually pay either no taxes or a negligible amount. http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=150513,00.html

So, progressive taxation takes money from those who earn more and gives it to those who earn less via EITC.

What part is not redistributive?

RED64CJ5

04-22-2010, 07:59

I honestly don't think people consider methods go to funding entitlements or "hand outs" (as the OP called them.) The methods come in many forms, as highlighted in certifiedfund's chart from the CBO -- but there are more. We all pay the price for entitlements. Even the so called 'poor' are paying a price, whether or not they realize it.

Any time you make a new "right" someone has to pay for it. Someone has to be deprived of their fruits to cover the cost of someone's new "right."

Face it, if many people who were 'downtrodden' got to play 'rich for a day,' would they like it when it's time to write a check to the IRS? Heck no! Gov't sponsodered entitlements suck.

I'm sick and tired of people with their "fantasy" view about entitlements and how great they benefit society. Get with the program.... No one is going to do more than "survive" on entitlements. It does not create opportunity. It undermines the fundamental desire to work hard and reap the benefits.

It's time to eliminate all unfair taxation methods -- real property, personal income, excise on US goods, etc. Let's go to a straight consumption tax collected at the point of sale (not a VAT!!!)

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 08:07

Just because a concept is stolen by a particular organization that you don't agree with as a talking point doesn't mean that the concept itself is bad. Repressive regimes all over the world give lip service in their documents to various freedoms; just because they do, are those concepts invalidated because of the source professing to follow them? No.

There you go with another label. I don't consider myself a "progressive". How about dealing with topics without trying to make someone fit a label.

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 09:29

Yes, they pay no income tax; they pay OTHER taxes. They are STILL "taxpayers". As I said, only a third of federal tax dollars comes from income tax.

Not when they get more from the government than they put in. Not when they get EITC. They are not paying their fair share. Every citizen should be responsible for supporting the government in the same manner. Why should one citizen get a free ride?

And its 45% that comes from income tax. Not 1/3.

tc556guy

04-22-2010, 09:30

45% 1/3 would be 33.333%

What part is not redistributive?

The thing about "redistribution" is that it makes it sound like that money is being taken from one person and given to another. Taxes go for more than social programs; they go for government services and fuctions that we ALL benefit from. The people in the higher tax brackets are still paying for government services and functions that ALL of society benefits from, themselves included. They simply pay a slightly higher per centage than the guy on the lower bracket.
As for the pie chart, the last I'd heard, income tax only accounted for a third. Its still not EVERY tax being paid, and most other Americans pay all sorts of taxes in their daily lives. They ARE taxpayers.

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 09:31

There you go with another label. I don't consider myself a "progressive". How about dealing with topics without trying to make someone fit a label.

It really doesn't matter what you consider yourself. Based on what you type here I don't think you're informed enough to label your political views properly.

If you expouse marxist/progressive views, you can call them whatever you like. It doesn't change the fact that they are marxist progressive views. And if you believe the things you post, well, that makes you a marxist progressive whether you want to admit it or not.

tc556guy

04-22-2010, 09:32

Not when they get more from the government than they put in. Not when they get EITC. They are not paying their fair share. Every citizen should be responsible for supporting the government in the same manner. Why should one citizen get a free ride?

Who decides what is a fair share? We all, if you sat down and figured it out, benefit from government programs far more than we individually pay in, from the food on our shelves to the medicines in our hospitals to the roads we drive on, etc etc etc. None of us is paying more than the benefits we individually enjoy from the various programs and agencies that our tax dollars fund.
Edit:
I agree that everyone should contribute to the running of government. The reality is that for the lowest socio-economic classes, they don't have the ability to contribute at levels equal to the higher-paid classes of society. How are you going to tell a guy scrapping by on 10K-15K a year that he has to cough up even 15 % of that.

tc556guy

04-22-2010, 09:35

It really doesn't matter what you consider yourself. Based on what you type here I don't think you're informed enough to label your political views properly.

If you expouse marxist/progressive views, you can call them whatever you like. It doesn't change the fact that they are marxist progressive views. And if you believe the things you post, well, that makes you a marxist progressive whether you want to admit it or not.

I'd say that you've simply developed such a skewed definition of the term that you are able to throw it out there to try to stick it on anyone whose views you disagree with. I believe you label yourself a "conservative" in such a way that your definition of the term and your concept of government is so narrow that it couldn't function in a modern world.

Omaha-BeenGlockin

04-22-2010, 09:43

Whoa---I go away from this thread for a awhile and now I'm just speachless.

To you Marxist/Liberals out there--you REALLY need to get a formal education in Economics.

I won't say you're stupid--but very ignorant. Thats all I have to say.

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 09:43

The thing about "redistribution" is that it makes it sound like that money is being taken from one person and given to another. Taxes go for more than social programs; they go for government services and fuctions that we ALL benefit from. The people in the higher tax brackets are still paying for government services and functions that ALL of society benefits from, themselves included. They simply pay a slightly higher per centage than the guy on the lower bracket.
As for the pie chart, the last I'd heard, income tax only accounted for a third. Its still not EVERY tax being paid, and most other Americans pay all sorts of taxes in their daily lives. They ARE taxpayers.

Since at least 1950 it has been north of 40% from income taxes. I don't know how old you are but perhaps you heard it in the 1940s.

When one person gets to live in this country without paying their fair share, someone else has to pay their way. That is redistribution.

If the government makes one person pay for another's grocery bill it is no different than that person paying for the other's "government" bill.

Name some of these federal government services and programs we all benefit from.

54% of the federal budget is mandatory spending. Mandatory spending IS social programs. 54% is redistributive.

You really need to do some research and get yourself informed so that you can form an educated opinion.

tc556guy

04-22-2010, 09:45

Yes it is.

The tax bill is X. As a citizen with equal protection under the law and equal rights, you have an equal obligation to fund the government. However, Progressive Taxation takes YOUR share of the federal tax burden from you and puts it on another.

That is redistributive.

See my above posts.

Apparently you aren't.

There has been thread after thread where you maintain that whatever the majority votes for shall be the law. That whomever the majority votes for may make whatever law they choose. That is not the form of government we're supposed to have......not the form the states agreed to. In practice, yes. However, the Constitution provides for our government and it does not provide for simple majority rule.

The way I see so many threads go, if Conservatives feel that a program they support has majority support, they say that the issue should be decided by majority vote. If it doesn't, the conservatives scream for minority protection. You can't have it both ways. The population has the right to expect to see the rules and laws that the majority of the population want put in place and enforced. The people who don't enjoy a majority share of the public opinion need to accept that their views and beliefs didn't win the day in the battle of public opinion, and they need to try to sway public opinion to their views. I don't see a whole lot of gunowners, for example, reaching out to educate people who are on the fence. I see a lot of gun clubs STILL with the view, for instance, that women shooters are not welcome. How are you going to exclude half the electorate from converting to your viewpoint, just because they are a certain sex? The answer for some here is to deny women the right to vote, because they figure that women will be on the other side of gun issues, among other reasons....some men are just plain chauvinists.

And for the record: The threads you refer to didn't advocate taking votes away from people they agree with. They advocated only allowing those who actually pay the bills in this country the exclusive right to decide how the government is run.

We all pay the bills of government. We should all have a say in how our nation is run

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 09:46

Who decides what is a fair share? We all, if you sat down and figured it out, benefit from government programs far more than we individually pay in, from the food on our shelves to the medicines in our hospitals to the roads we drive on, etc etc etc. None of us is paying more than the benefits we individually enjoy from the various programs and agencies that our tax dollars fund.
Edit:
I agree that everyone should contribute to the running of government. The reality is that for the lowest socio-economic classes, they don't have the ability to contribute at levels equal to the higher-paid classes of society. How are you going to tell a guy scrapping by on 10K-15K a year that he has to cough up even 15 % of that.

Fair is an equal share. Divide the federal budget by the number of able bodied citizens over 21 = fair share.

The lower socio-economic classes are freeloaders. That guy scraping by on 10-15K per year is a freeloader. He's chosen his place in life. sucks to be him.

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 09:52

See my above posts.

I have seen all of your "above posts". Either you have very poor reading comprehension or you are incapable of understanding abstract thought.

The way I see so many threads go, if Conservatives feel that a program they support has majority support, they say that the issue should be decided by majority vote. If it doesn't, the conservatives scream for minority protection. You can't have it both ways. The population has the right to expect to see the rules and laws that the majority of the population want put in place and enforced. The people who don't enjoy a majority share of the public opinion need to accept that their views and beliefs didn't win the day in the battle of public opinion, and they need to try to sway public opinion to their views. I don't see a whole lot of gunowners, for example, reaching out to educate people who are on the fence. I see a lot of gun clubs STILL with the view, for instance, that women shooters are not welcome. How are you going to exclude half the electorate from converting to your viewpoint, just because they are a certain sex? The answer for some here is to deny women the right to vote, because they figure that women will be on the other side of gun issues, among other reasons....some men are just plain chauvinists.

The Founders comprised the bill of rights as a decidely ANTI-democratic document. Its purposes are to protect the rights of the individual against exactly the type of tyranny you describe.

We have a Constitution that is supposed to draw boundaries as to what the .gov/elected representatives can do. Within those boundaries your opinions work. But we blew by those boundaries long ago. We now have majority rule -- tyranny of the majority -- and that is why our country is so divided.

tc556guy

04-22-2010, 09:52

Since at least 1950 it has been north of 40% from income taxes. I don't know how old you are but perhaps you heard it in the 1940s.

No, it was much more recent than that.

When one person gets to live in this country without paying their fair share, someone else has to pay their way. That is redistribution.

Repeating the same thing over and over again wont make it true. Who decides what a fair share is, and who doesn't benefit far more than the taxes that they individually pay in.

If the government makes one person pay for another's grocery bill it is no different than that person paying for the other's "government" bill.

If you don't like the government programs that pay for someones food bill, then summon the voters and end the program. if you can't get enough votes, I guess that not enough people agree with your views.

Name some of these federal government services and programs we all benefit from.

Every Federal agency that exists, we all benefit from in some way.

54% of the federal budget is mandatory spending. Mandatory spending IS social programs. 54% is redistributive.

You really need to do some research and get yourself informed so that you can form an educated opinion.

There is far more to mandatory spending than social programs.

I'm well educated, thanks very much. I notice from all political spectrums that a poster will make accusations that the other person is "uneducated" on an issue. Sometimes, as in the gun debates, there IS a lack of information flow. In general though, its merely done as a way of dismissing the differing viewpoints and comments. Don't make the mistake of throwing that out there.

We ALL complain about programs we don't agree with; Liberals complain about the defense budget. Do you want to allow them to dictate that the military budget be gutted? Be careful what you wish for.

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 09:53

We all pay the bills of government. We should all have a say in how our nation is run

This is incorrect.

Secondly, if we all want an EQUAL say in how our gubmint is run, then we all need to pay an equal bill to support it.

tc556guy

04-22-2010, 09:55

What in the **** are you talking about? Male chauvinists?

I'm saying that I often see threads where posters say that various groups of citizens should be disenfranchised. This particular thread deals with exclusion based on income; others base their claim based on sex. Anyone who says we should be exclusing females simply for being female is a chauvinist misogynist.

Your above description of majority rule taxation is yet another example of your marxist progressive views.
There you go with the labels again. You are hopeless. Go ahead and think what you want, but you need to broaden your horizons and stop trying to throw a label that doesn't fit on people whose views differ from your own.

tc556guy

04-22-2010, 09:57

This is incorrect.

Secondly, if we all want an EQUAL say in how our gubmint is run, then we all need to pay an equal bill to support it.

The vast majority of Americans pay taxes of some sort. YOU and your friends have decided to use a litmus test to declare that some people who don't pay income tax aren't "taxpayers". Thats a phony line of thinking.

As I've already said, all of us benefit more from programs than what we pay in; we are ALL in a deficit in that regards.

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 10:12

If you don't like the government programs that pay for someones food bill, then summon the voters and end the program. if you can't get enough votes, I guess that not enough people agree with your views.

The COTUS does not authorize the federal government to pay ANYONE'S food bill. My point exactly.

Every Federal agency that exists, we all benefit from in some way.

Simply bull****.

I do not benefit from the Depts of Education, Energy, Environmental Protection, to name a few. And none are authorized by the COTUS. Ed and Enviro are STATE functions.

I'm well educated, thanks very much. I notice from all political spectrums that a poster will make accusations that the other person is "uneducated" on an issue. Sometimes, as in the gun debates, there IS a lack of information flow. In general though, its merely done as a way of dismissing the differing viewpoints and comments. Don't make the mistake of throwing that out there.

By educated, I mean informed. Not degreed.

We ALL complain about programs we don't agree with; Liberals complain about the defense budget. Do you want to allow them to dictate that the military budget be gutted? Be careful what you wish for.

Yes. The defense budget. Bloated, wasteful and extremely corrupt. I have no issue with dramatically cutting it.

But, the primary Constitutional role of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. And even still, we spend far more on social/redistributive programs than on defense. And the social programs are not authorized by the COTUS.

certifiedfunds

04-22-2010, 10:14

The vast majority of Americans pay taxes of some sort. YOU and your friends have decided to use a litmus test to declare that some people who don't pay income tax aren't "taxpayers". Thats a phony line of thinking.

As I've already said, all of us benefit more from programs than what we pay in; we are ALL in a deficit in that regards.

A fair share is an equal share in what it costs to run this government. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

My friends and I believe that it is no business of the federal government's how much money I earn. NONE! I don't share that info with my closest friends.

See, here's the rub tc55guy: My views impose nothing on YOU. My views allow you to go about and live your life with liberty. Live as you see fit so long as you don't harm another citizen or violate their Constitutional rights.

Your views, on the other hand, impose your will on me. They restrict my liberty and my ability to live my life as I see fit.

True conservatives will tell you to simply, "Mind your own business". And we'll do the same.

racerford

04-22-2010, 22:19

..... Who decides what a fair share is, and who doesn't benefit far more than the taxes that they individually pay in.

If you don't like the government programs that pay for someones food bill, then summon the voters and end the program. if you can't get enough votes, I guess that not enough people agree with your views.

.........

I would be happy to take on the role of deciding what a fair share is. I am a nice guy like that:supergrin:

I don't benefit far more than I pay in. You haven't paid my tax bills so you are in no position to say otherwise. The only way it might even be possible is the HUGE deficit spending we are under right now. You can't possibly believe that is good in the long term. Also, I can assure you that I will pay more than I get out of that before I die.

Remember this quote of Alexander F. Tyler "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the treasury with the result that democracies always collapse over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship.'

Just because the majority votes for it doesn't make it right or not stealing from the rich.

kirgi08

04-22-2010, 23:44

:duel:

emt1581

04-23-2010, 00:04

Still no examples...? :dunno:

-Emt1581

cruz lee

04-23-2010, 01:11

what about having a flat 10 % payroll tax on every us citizen 18 yrs -66yr old to pay for healtcare services for all...no exclusioms. no deudctibles. can not be denied coverage.eletive surgery , you sssume a 75% responsability for fees out of pocket. penalties for coverage % based on poor lifestyle choices and risky behaviors. coverage cn be declines if continues to participate in risky /detri,ental behaiors despite medical evidence to the contrary ill effects on health ...stupid is as stupid does. see how lifestyle choices affect their coverage of health servivces ides due to unhealthy eating habits, poor lifestyle choices as far as education in nutrition and physical education..

tc556guy

04-23-2010, 07:41

what about having a flat 10 % payroll tax on every us citizen 18 yrs -66yr old to pay for healtcare services for all...no exclusioms. no deudctibles. can not be denied coverage.eletive surgery , you sssume a 75% responsability for fees out of pocket. penalties for coverage % based on poor lifestyle choices and risky behaviors. coverage cn be declines if continues to participate in risky /detri,ental behaiors despite medical evidence to the contrary ill effects on health ...stupid is as stupid does. see how lifestyle choices affect their coverage of health servivces ides due to unhealthy eating habits, poor lifestyle choices as far as education in nutrition and physical education..

Everyone should pay for their own health insurance.

tc556guy

04-23-2010, 07:42

I don't benefit far more than I pay in. You haven't paid my tax bills so you are in no position to say otherwise.

Sure you do; you just don't want to admit that you do.The roads you drive on, the medicines you use, the food you eat....you benefit from so many programs and you don't even want to recognize it.

certifiedfunds

04-23-2010, 07:49

Sure you do; you just don't want to admit that you do.The roads you drive on, the medicines you use, the food you eat....you benefit from so many programs and you don't even want to recognize it.

Roads are a state function. And before you talk about federal highway funds, those funds shouldn't go to the fed in the first place....only to be bequeathed back to the states after they jump through federal hoops.

The government programs provide the medicine I use and the food I eat?

certifiedfunds

04-23-2010, 07:50

Everyone should pay for their own health insurance.

What about your guy that makes $10-$15K / year? Who should pay for HIS health insurance?

lawman800

04-23-2010, 08:24

Yes, we all benefit from certain government programs and functions like the military providing for a safe nation and interstate commerce for our abundant markets and even the post office. However, those are all enumerated powers of the Federal government which they are authorized to levy tax so they can provide. All the other programs have no basis in the Constitution, including all your social welfare programs. ZERO authority. (Before you say it, general welfare is in the preamble, it is not even in the body of the Constitution and has no force of law)

How is it fair to charge someone rich more for the same or less programs than the poor? Does he use more road? Does he send out more mail? Does a soldier protect him more? I venture say that he is still one man and uses up one man's resources, or even less, since the rich get no benefit from social programs meant to give assistance to the poor. How is it fair to tax a rich man a higher percentage of his wealth so that someone poor can pay a smaller percentage or no percentage at all and use the same, if not more, government resources? Why is that simple mathematic model so hard to comprehend?

You want simple #s to visualize it? Fine.

2 guys, 1 making $250,000 (Guy A) and 1 making $10,000 (Guy B)

GA pays 40% in the progressive scheme or $50,000
GB pays 0% in the progressive scheme or $0

GA has $200,000 left to spend on other things
GB has $10,000 left to spend on other things

Unless GA only spends $10,000 or less on taxed transactions would GB even come close to paying the same as GA in the sales tax or VAT or excise tax scenario and nowhere close to the income tax scenario.

Realistically, also, GB would receive government assistance like EITC, HUD, food stamps, etc., after paying zero income tax, so he is a net income tax taker, which takes from those who pay more, like GA. How is that not redistributive?

I haven't even accounted for the fact that there are also state and maybe city income taxes, property taxes which are not likely to be paid by GB as he probably won't own land, and various state and local welfare programs not used by GA but used by GB.

certifiedfunds

04-23-2010, 08:43

Yes, we all benefit from certain government programs and functions like the military providing for a safe nation and interstate commerce for our abundant markets and even the post office. However, those are all enumerated powers of the Federal government which they are authorized to levy tax so they can provide. All the other programs have no basis in the Constitution, including all your social welfare programs. ZERO authority. (Before you say it, general welfare is in the preamble, it is not even in the body of the Constitution and has no force of law)

How is it fair to charge someone rich more for the same or less programs than the poor? Does he use more road? Does he send out more mail? Does a soldier protect him more? I venture say that he is still one man and uses up one man's resources, or even less, since the rich get no benefit from social programs meant to give assistance to the poor. How is it fair to tax a rich man a higher percentage of his wealth so that someone poor can pay a smaller percentage or no percentage at all and use the same, if not more, government resources? Why is that simple mathematic model so hard to comprehend?

You want simple #s to visualize it? Fine.

2 guys, 1 making $250,000 (Guy A) and 1 making $10,000 (Guy B)

GA pays 40% in the progressive scheme or $50,000
GB pays 0% in the progressive scheme or $0

GA has $200,000 left to spend on other things
GB has $10,000 left to spend on other things

Unless GA only spends $10,000 or less on taxed transactions would GB even come close to paying the same as GA in the sales tax or VAT or excise tax scenario and nowhere close to the income tax scenario.

Realistically, also, GB would receive government assistance like EITC, HUD, food stamps, etc., after paying zero income tax, so he is a net income tax taker, which takes from those who pay more, like GA. How is that not redistributive?

I haven't even accounted for the fact that there are also state and maybe city income taxes, property taxes which are not likely to be paid by GB as he probably won't own land, and various state and local welfare programs not used by GA but used by GB.

the marxist-progressive can't answer these questions in a logical, coherent manner.

emt1581

04-23-2010, 10:49

So due to the lack of any examples, I'm taking it that once a government gives out welfare and the rest of society picks up the slack for the lazy, it NEVER gets reduced or eliminated.

Seems like a portion of society is responsible for providing the lazy ones of society....so no matter how much or little you work, you still get an income. And the less you work the more you get for free... how is that not a communist situation again??

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds

04-23-2010, 12:09

So due to the lack of any examples, I'm taking it that once a government gives out welfare and the rest of society picks up the slack for the lazy, it NEVER gets reduced or eliminated.

Seems like a portion of society is responsible for providing the lazy ones of society....so no matter how much or little you work, you still get an income. And the less you work the more you get for free... how is that not a communist situation again??

-Emt1581

It will end when the ends don't meet. They'll destroy the currency and the credit of the U.S. to meet their social commitments, and then flee.

I'll let the resident marxist-socialist-progressive tc55guy tell you how its not communist.

G29Reload

04-23-2010, 17:26

So due to the lack of any examples,

I told you several posts back that it was rolled back in Welfare to Work programs during the Klinton admin.

It actually worked and had a 5 yr limit on welfare. A lot of welfare people were pissed that they had to start working.

But when their benes were cut off, work they did. Amazing.

What we need to eliminate immediately is the EITC.

lawman800

04-23-2010, 19:56

Mitch, I pose this to you. How rich is rich? Who decides who is rich? Is your Queen Nancy Pelosi rich? I submit that she is with her millions in net worth, along with her husband's net worth. How about Barack? He ain't doing too shabby with his book sales and his $400k salary with little expenses. Then you got all of the Hollywood libs with their hundreds of millions.

Then you have the working schlubs who make a decent salary. How rich is rich when you work for a living? Be careful, because to the guy who has less than you, you are now the rich guy. How much are you willing to give to the guy who has less than you. If you are making six figures, you are in the top 10% of wage earners in America. Guess what, you're rich, start coughing up.

As for TC's assertion that I want to take the vote away from people who don't agree with me... look at who's rich here. The libs have all the big time multimillion and billionaires like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates, professional athletes and Hollywood. They pay their share and more. By my own statement, they are all allowed to vote too and you never heard me say they can't vote. They pay for services they will never use too.

I don't care how you vote, that is not the issue. It never was. It only became an issue when libs tried to hide the facts and use the same ad hominem straw man attacks that I want to disenfranchise a certain segment due to race or ideology. That's totally false and disingenuous. You pay, you vote, I don't care how you vote. You paid your dues.

Another poster said it and I stand by it too. Conservatives want to be left alone and live their own lives and earn their own way. Liberals want to butt into other people's business and tell others how to live and use other people's money to pay their way.

marlinfan

04-23-2010, 20:23

Roads are a state function. And before you talk about federal highway funds, those funds shouldn't go to the fed in the first place....only to be bequeathed back to the states after they jump through federal hoops.

The government programs provide the medicine I use and the food I eat?
both are heavily subsidized by the fed. Not saying it's right, but it's true. especially food.

certifiedfunds

04-23-2010, 20:31

both are heavily subsidized by the fed. Not saying it's right, but it's true. especially food.

Right. And the fed gets its money from the states.

Leave the money in the states and we don't need the damnded fed to bequeath the money back to us to build roads or support our food production.

racerford

04-23-2010, 22:08

Sure you do; you just don't want to admit that you do.The roads you drive on, the medicines you use, the food you eat....you benefit from so many programs and you don't even want to recognize it.

Just how much in taxes do I have to pay to be at the break-even point? How much in benefits do I receive?

This is a very arrogant and presumptive statement of you to make. You don't know what benefits I have received, you don't know how much I pay, and you spout this drivel. You are wrong.

You spout this drivel because you think it helps you make your point. You are wrong, it shows your ignorance.

When does a person pay enough in taxes? What is a person's fair share? You can't answer the question and yet you say I don't pay as much as I benefit. You are wrong. Put up the facts that support your position.

Does Warren Buffet pay more in taxes than he benefits?, Bill Gates? Just how much road do they use? How much food do they eat? Do more soldiers protect them than you?

lawman800

04-24-2010, 00:42

Right. And the fed gets its money from the states.

Leave the money in the states and we don't need the damnded fed to bequeath the money back to us to build roads or support our food production.

That in itself is redistribution at its most elementary.

The states give money over to the Feds who then redistributes it back according to earmarks, pet projects, federal programs and all the other fun and hilarious ways it wants.

So for example, CA has been a net contributor to the fed for decades. We give the Fed way more than we get back in federal moneys. Therefore, Californians have subsidized roads, welfare, and farm subsidies in other states in accordance with how they run their business.

I don't benefit one iota from a cow fart methane plant in Iowa nor do I care that the indigent in Alabama get HUD housing on my dime.

I don't even like it at the state level where my local taxes in LA get sent up there and Sacramento gives it to HIV awareness classes in SF where they teach gay men how to be safer when they "romp" in their bath houses. How does SF get to spend my money when I have no say in SF politics?

mitchshrader

04-24-2010, 01:02

No, you have it backwards. Thieves CLAIM to be liberals.

At your expense, and that oughta be your first clue. They ain't one BIT liberal, they don't want you spending your own money.

And like I said, I want to soak the rich for UNEARNED income, not anything they produce. Their wages, no matter how high, are THEIRS. I don't want any.

But if you DIE, and give your brother 30 million, he didn't EARN it. Capish? And you can't complain I took YOUR money, you're DEAD. so quit griping.

I didn't say estate taxes were fair, I said they were the LEAST tyrannical.

And as far as how MUCH can be inherited without tax, that's up to the electorate. I'd like to say you can inherit or win the first million any given year without tax, and halvers past that. That's with NO income tax. So if you want that 30 mil to go untaxed, you split it among 30 people. None of 'em pay a dime. How's that? It's redistributive and a LOT less tyrannical than the current income tax.

I have no interest in maximizing government income, the reverse. Left up to me, charitable contributions would be counted as tax payments, if provable, and any tax you paid could be specifically earmarked for a particular government expense. Defense, medical, schools, whatever. And if the populace didn't fund a program, it didn't get funded.

But at some point, somebody is going to have to pay SOMETHING to keep the lights on.. and I'd rather it be excise taxes, inheritance taxes, or even a sales tax before income taxes or corporate taxes.

At about 40% total of the current tax burden. Redistributive taxation isn't theft if YOU do the redistributing. What i don't want is multi-generation billion dollar estates buying my government. OR theft of labor..

crimsonaudio

04-24-2010, 06:07

Right. And the fed gets its money from the states.

Leave the money in the states and we don't need the damnded fed to bequeath the money back to us to build roads or support our food production.
Sorta - the fed gets it's money from the people. I dunno about you, but I don't pay my federal income tax (or business tax) to the state - I pay the US Treasury directly. That's why they have the States by the balls here - the state doesn't see the cash until/unless they do what the FedGov wants.

certifiedfunds

04-24-2010, 08:04

Sorta - the fed gets it's money from the people. I dunno about you, but I don't pay my federal income tax (or business tax) to the state - I pay the US Treasury directly. That's why they have the States by the balls here - the state doesn't see the cash until/unless they do what the FedGov wants.

Of course you are correct.

I am of the mindset that I am a citizen of Louisiana, FIRST. I am much more supportive of state and local taxes to fund things that benefit Louisiana citizens, like roads, police, education and fire protection. It utterly disgusts me to see my tax dollars leave the state only to be granted back to it.

I'd like to see my overall tax bill reduced dramatically...on the order of 75%. Then, instead of the 90/10 federal/ state split I see now, I would prefer 90% of my tax dollars go to the state and 10% to the Fed.

emt1581

04-24-2010, 11:40

I told you several posts back that it was rolled back in Welfare to Work programs during the Klinton admin.

It actually worked and had a 5 yr limit on welfare. A lot of welfare people were pissed that they had to start working.

But when their benes were cut off, work they did. Amazing.

What we need to eliminate immediately is the EITC.

Other than that ONE example...there are no others?

Even that limit you speak of, what good did it really do? I mean it's obviously not in place today or there wouldn't be 4th and 5th generation project-dwellers still there...

I'd like to hear about a time when the rug was swiftly pulled out from under the welfare recipients. Not something giving them 5 years to adjust. However, I doubt there is such an example.

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds

04-24-2010, 12:19

When does a person pay enough in taxes? What is a person's fair share?

tc55guy and his ilk will tell you that the majority of voters will answer this question for you.

lawman800

04-25-2010, 14:46

Redistributive taxation isn't theft if YOU do the redistributing.

I don't want any redistributing. That's the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Liberals want to redistribute other people's money, not their own. Find me a liberal that wants to distribute his own money. Find me one that is willing to live as one of the masses and not as a party member with private jets and big mansions. Which rich liberal is redistributing his own money so that he lives the same as everyone else? Hypocrites.

Conservatives want to keep their own money and not take anyone else's money. You earn yours, I earn mine. I don't want yours, you don't touch mine. Sounds fair to me, no?

Tell that to the people in the ghettos. "It's Obama-money....he got his stash!"...:upeyes:

-Emt1581

tc556guy

04-25-2010, 21:45

I don't want any redistributing. That's the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Liberals want to redistribute other people's money, not their own. Find me a liberal that wants to distribute his own money. Find me one that is willing to live as one of the masses and not as a party member with private jets and big mansions. Which rich liberal is redistributing his own money so that he lives the same as everyone else? Hypocrites.

Conservatives want to keep their own money and not take anyone else's money. You earn yours, I earn mine. I don't want yours, you don't touch mine. Sounds fair to me, no?

You keep ranting about redistribution, when as I've already said, we are all in a deficit and enjoy more benefits than the amount that we individually pay in. If you want to do soemthing about welfare programs in particular because you feel that some recipients are abusing the system, then get public opinion to support your view and get the programs changed.

tc556guy

04-25-2010, 21:49

Just how much in taxes do I have to pay to be at the break-even point? How much in benefits do I receive?

This is a very arrogant and presumptive statement of you to make. You don't know what benefits I have received, you don't know how much I pay, and you spout this drivel. You are wrong.

You spout this drivel because you think it helps you make your point. You are wrong, it shows your ignorance.

When does a person pay enough in taxes? What is a person's fair share? You can't answer the question and yet you say I don't pay as much as I benefit. You are wrong. Put up the facts that support your position.

Does Warren Buffet pay more in taxes than he benefits?, Bill Gates? Just how much road do they use? How much food do they eat? Do more soldiers protect them than you?

I don't believe its presumptive on my part. The average American pays a few thousand in income tax every year; are you saying that you receive LESS than a few thousand in behefits from Federal programs? I find that very doubtful. Go ahead and label my views " ignorant" if that makes you feel better, but I think that betrays your own lack of comprehension on the issue.

I would say that even Buffet benefits more than what he pays in, even at his pay scale.

tc556guy

04-25-2010, 21:51

What about your guy that makes $10-$15K / year? Who should pay for HIS health insurance?

Everyone should pay for their own insurance. The guy making 15 K can still afford a catastrophic plan. Generally a guy only making 10K a year is a retired guy making supplemental income to augment a pension or other benefits and probably gets insurance through other existing programs.

tc556guy

04-25-2010, 21:55

Roads are a state function. And before you talk about federal highway funds, those funds shouldn't go to the fed in the first place....only to be bequeathed back to the states after they jump through federal hoops.

The government programs provide the medicine I use and the food I eat?

A reliable national road network for interstate commerce is a Federal interest. Hence, Federal funding. An Interstate costs 1 million per foot to build. You really think the states can cough up that kind of dough to give us a good road network?

I'd love to get more stuff hauled via rail, but for now we are forced to use the highways. That means Federal money.

Government programs ensure the safety of the meds and food you consume.

emt1581

04-25-2010, 21:56

You keep ranting about redistribution, when as I've already said, we are all in a deficit and enjoy more benefits than the amount that we individually pay in. If you want to do soemthing about welfare programs in particular because you feel that some recipients are abusing the system, then get public opinion to support your view and get the programs changed.

Support by public opinion?? Other than the tea party itself coming and giving their support by the thousands, the only people that raise hell about welfare and redistribution in general, at least in a public sense, are those receiving it so they get more from such programs!!

Most of the same ghetto-dwellers are the people that yell louder than or beat the crap out of anyone who opposes them. Seriously, have you ever seen how people in the projects "debate"?? I have. It has nothing to do with who's facts are accurate. It's more about who has the crazier mentality, bigger weapons/gang, and can get the other side to submit out of fear! IMHO, you can protest such ignorance, but you better be prepared for bloodshed.

As I said earlier, our society seems to be content paying for welfare programs. I haven't seen ANY protests against it that I can remember. But how many people that work hard are happy their money goes to those who aren't doing the same?

I saw a bumper sticker that was one of a few dozen plastered on the back of a car today. It said "Robin Hood had it right!"... I don't have anything else to say about it...just figured I'd mention it.

-Emt1581

emt1581

04-25-2010, 21:58

I don't believe its presumptive on my part. The average American pays a few thousand in income tax every year; are you saying that you receive LESS than a few thousand in behefits from Federal programs? I find that very doubtful. Go ahead and label my views " ignorant" if that makes you feel better, but I think that betrays your own lack of comprehension on the issue.

I would say that even Buffet benefits more than what he pays in, even at his pay scale.

A question for you...if we do receive more than we're paying, how is that possible and how long can it last?

Is the government somehow working hard to pay us more than we pay it? If so, how?

-Emt1581

emt1581

04-25-2010, 22:00

Everyone should pay for their own insurance. The guy making 15 K can still afford a catastrophic plan. Generally a guy only making 10K a year is a retired guy making supplemental income to augment a pension or other benefits and probably gets insurance through other existing programs.

I don't care who pays what....the federal government has no business forcing anyone to buy anything!!

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds

04-25-2010, 22:10

I don't believe its presumptive on my part. The average American pays a few thousand in income tax every year; are you saying that you receive LESS than a few thousand in behefits from Federal programs? I find that very doubtful. Go ahead and label my views " ignorant" if that makes you feel better, but I think that betrays your own lack of comprehension on the issue.

I would say that even Buffet benefits more than what he pays in, even at his pay scale.

So if Person A pays $150,000 in taxes.

And Person B pays $5,000 in taxes.

They benefit equally?

certifiedfunds

04-25-2010, 22:12

You keep ranting about redistribution, when as I've already said, we are all in a deficit and enjoy more benefits than the amount that we individually pay in. If you want to do soemthing about welfare programs in particular because you feel that some recipients are abusing the system, then get public opinion to support your view and get the programs changed.

How much would one citizen have to pay to receive EXACTLY the same amount of benefit, as money he pays in?

What would that number be?

Or is it just kinda magical?

And if we're all receiving these generous benefits, how is it fair for one citizen to pay more for said benefits than another citizen?

Another way to ask the question would be: How is it fair for one citizen to pay for the benefits received by another citizen?

certifiedfunds

04-25-2010, 22:19

Everyone should pay for their own insurance. The guy making 15 K can still afford a catastrophic plan. Generally a guy only making 10K a year is a retired guy making supplemental income to augment a pension or other benefits and probably gets insurance through other existing programs.

Catastrophic plan for a family of 4:

$10,000 deductible

$11,600 max OOP

No prescription drug benefits

$486/month

Average total healthcare expenditure = $8,000/yr

That's what my family pays. Can your fella afford that?

The government calls it too expensive. I call it a bargain because our federal tax bill was several multiples of that number.

In fact, I pay more in federal taxes than I pay for all of the following combined:

Mortgage
Groceries
Health Insurance
Transportation
Utilities

certifiedfunds

04-25-2010, 22:29

A reliable national road network for interstate commerce is a Federal interest. Hence, Federal funding. An Interstate costs 1 million per foot to build. You really think the states can cough up that kind of dough to give us a good road network?

Absolutely! They cough it up NOW!

From where does the federal government get these dollars to build interstates? If they didn't confiscate that money from the citizens of the states, could the states afford to build their own highways?

Government programs ensure the safety of the meds and food you consume.

Really?

So, no one gets foodborn illness. No children get ecoli. No salmonella outbreaks. Our food supply is "ensured" to be safe.

No medicine recalls. All meds that the FDA approves are "ensured" to be safe.

racerford

04-25-2010, 23:24

I don't believe its presumptive on my part. The average American pays a few thousand in income tax every year; are you saying that you receive LESS than a few thousand in behefits from Federal programs? I find that very doubtful. Go ahead and label my views " ignorant" if that makes you feel better, but I think that betrays your own lack of comprehension on the issue.

I would say that even Buffet benefits more than what he pays in, even at his pay scale.

So you didn't answer the question. Warren Buffet benefits more that he pays? Just how many soldiers are surrounding his house to protect him?

Yes, very presumptive on your part. Again you don't know what I pay in taxes. You don't know what services I use.

I pay more in income taxes than the median family income. Not more than they pay in taxes, more than they make. I don't pay a few thousand in income tax. I pay many multiples of that. So yes, very presumptive of you. Your lack of concern for your own ignorance is staggering.

Again what is the break point for enough? I guess since even Warren Buffet doesn't pay enough in taxes there is no limit. If you believe the tripe you are spouting, why are you just sending your whole paycheck to the government?

If I take the 2010 Federal Budget and divide by the number of people in the US ~309 million the average cost per person is ~11,500 per person. I multiply that by the number of people in my family. I pay more in income taxes than that. When I include Social Security and Medicare taxes, and my portion of the corporate taxes from my stock holdings, and from what I buy each year. I pay far more than the amount calculated to cover my family. I have done so for many many years.

I do not receive any benefit from more than 50% of the budget. So my multiple of paying for my fair share is even higher.

So it is redistributive for me, no matter how you cut it, deficit spending included.

Obviously you don't. So stop stealing money from me. Why should you get to vote to steal money from my pocket. Why is that right?

How much am I benefiting, specifically?

Each additional answer you have given on the this thread just further reveals the Marxist/socialist nature of your beliefs.

kirgi08

04-26-2010, 00:05

Everyone should pay for their own insurance. The guy making 15 K can still afford a catastrophic plan. Generally a guy only making 10K a year is a retired guy making supplemental income to augment a pension or other benefits and probably gets insurance through other existing programs.

That's a lot of bravo sierra right there.I made a little over 10k last year,working full time.I usta make a lot more,now I don't.I don't have corp supplied insurance,so how, pray tell, am I gonna pay for insurance,I'll keep it simple. I can't.'08. :upeyes:

kirgi08

04-26-2010, 00:06

I don't care who pays what....the federal government has no business forcing anyone to buy anything!!

-Emt1581

Agreed.'08. :steamed:

lawman800

04-26-2010, 00:49

You keep ranting about redistribution, when as I've already said, we are all in a deficit and enjoy more benefits than the amount that we individually pay in. If you want to do soemthing about welfare programs in particular because you feel that some recipients are abusing the system, then get public opinion to support your view and get the programs changed.

How much do I enjoy? How do you know how much that's worth? How can the government keep providing more than it takes in? How is that even remotely sustainable?

As for the welfare program, that is the whole crux of the Marxist/Communist plan. Progressive taxation is plotted along the curve that ensures them the majority vote because a majority would fall into the zero-liability non-taxed portion so they would always vote for the party that promises them something on the backs of the working class.

As soon as the Dems get their 50.1% majority placed into the recipient class, they would become unstoppable. They are already at 47% and with this amnesty, they will be over the top. You don't think there's a grand plan to all this madness?

What is your philosophy? Seriously. Do you really think you can support these programs indefinitely?

Answer me, do you live as a proletariat or bourgeoise? Are you a socialist who believes in socialism for everyone else but yourself?

Do you really think you are not a socialist but you believe in all these socialist ideas? BTW, it's not my label. You support all the major tenets of communism, not me. I just call it like I see it. If the shoe fits, wear it.

lawman800

04-26-2010, 00:55

The current benefits package that I have with medical, dental, vision, life, etc. is worth about $16,200 per year. That's more than your guy making $15,000 a year. How does he pay for that? Have zero mortgage and groceries and then borrow $1,200 on top?

I pay more in taxes than what your $15,000 guy makes, and that's just federal income, not including state and all the other deductions like FICA, SSI, and whatever else comes out of my check before I get it. How does he receive the same benefits as me? How does the welfare recipient contribute the same as me? How is any of this fair?

Answer one simple question. You have not answered anything other than saying you are not socialist and that we all need to pay what we can... (From each according to his ability... sound familiar?)

certifiedfunds

04-26-2010, 07:04

So you didn't answer the question.

He has proven in thread after thread that he can't answer the question with any substance. He just spews platitudes.

In the Progressive/Socialist/Marxist circles there are basically two types of people.

1. The intelligent people who understand the full ramifications of their belief system and want to bring about a Socialist/Marxist government with themselves, the elite, at the top of the sociopolitical strata ruling their subjects. These are the evil folks.

2. The Useful Idiots who believe what they believe because they're either dependent on the government for their subsistence, or, those that are too unintelligent to think a situation through more than a couple of levels.

tc55guy has demonstrated time and again to be #2 -- The Useful Idiot.

He may or may not come back to the thread. If he does, he'll not answer any specific questions with solid information. Rather, he'll toss out more platitudes and get irritated with people labeling his beliefs appropriately.

lawman800

04-26-2010, 23:09

and the liberals say that conservatives are the dumb ones....

tc556guy

04-27-2010, 06:55

He has proven in thread after thread that he can't answer the question with any substance. He just spews platitudes.

In the Progressive/Socialist/Marxist circles there are basically two types of people.

1. The intelligent people who understand the full ramifications of their belief system and want to bring about a Socialist/Marxist government with themselves, the elite, at the top of the sociopolitical strata ruling their subjects. These are the evil folks.

2. The Useful Idiots who believe what they believe because they're either dependent on the government for their subsistence, or, those that are too unintelligent to think a situation through more than a couple of levels.

tc55guy has demonstrated time and again to be #2 -- The Useful Idiot.

He may or may not come back to the thread. If he does, he'll not answer any specific questions with solid information. Rather, he'll toss out more platitudes and get irritated with people labeling his beliefs appropriately.

I'm here, but I've given up on you. Its you who spews the platitudes and labels. You are unredeemable. We will have to agree to disagree, but I'm sure that thats not possible for you. You'll just keep dismissing people with labels.

You expect citations and sources, but even if I could produce those, it wouldn't change your mind. I've found that out over years of posting, that those who want to react to my posts have their minds made up already, and no amount of research and info is going to change what they think.

I work three jobs, so its not like I can live on the board.

How much do I enjoy? How do you know how much that's worth? How can the government keep providing more than it takes in? How is that even remotely sustainable?

We live in a complex industrialized nation whose infrastructural development has been built up and improved on over the course of centuries. The programs I'm talking about have existed in an evolving form for a century.
Its hard to say how much you personally benefit from these programs and this infrastructure, but if you live in the USA, theres no way that you DON'T benefit from it. You'd need to go to a Third World country and live there to appreciate what we have here that isn't possible there.

The sustainability is another issue. To not have these programs will devolve the nation into some form of anarchy, and the infrastructure to crumble over decades, and reliable interstate commerce become a thing of the past. You really want to go there? I don't.

tc556guy

04-27-2010, 07:05

So you didn't answer the question. Warren Buffet benefits more that he pays? Just how many soldiers are surrounding his house to protect him?

Yes, very presumptive on your part. Again you don't know what I pay in taxes. You don't know what services I use.

I pay more in income taxes than the median family income. Not more than they pay in taxes, more than they make. I don't pay a few thousand in income tax. I pay many multiples of that. So yes, very presumptive of you. Your lack of concern for your own ignorance is staggering.

Again what is the break point for enough? I guess since even Warren Buffet doesn't pay enough in taxes there is no limit. If you believe the tripe you are spouting, why are you just sending your whole paycheck to the government?

If I take the 2010 Federal Budget and divide by the number of people in the US ~309 million the average cost per person is ~11,500 per person. I multiply that by the number of people in my family. I pay more in income taxes than that. When I include Social Security and Medicare taxes, and my portion of the corporate taxes from my stock holdings, and from what I buy each year. I pay far more than the amount calculated to cover my family. I have done so for many many years.

I do not receive any benefit from more than 50% of the budget. So my multiple of paying for my fair share is even higher.

So it is redistributive for me, no matter how you cut it, deficit spending included.

Obviously you don't. So stop stealing money from me. Why should you get to vote to steal money from my pocket. Why is that right?

How much am I benefiting, specifically?

Each additional answer you have given on the this thread just further reveals the Marxist/socialist nature of your beliefs.

Then you are in the top .01 % of the population. I don't think you are hurting for cash. So you pay about 30K or 40K in taxes. Is that supposed to impress us?
Yes, I believe that even Warren B benefits far more than the taxes he pays in.

I don't believe in the government taking your entire check, so why would I send my entire check to them. I do believe that the people in the highest income brackets can afford to send along an extra couple of per centage points in income tax. Not the 90% bracket that used to get imposed on higher brackets, but a few per centage points more.

tc556guy

04-27-2010, 07:08

That's a lot of bravo sierra right there.I made a little over 10k last year,working full time.I usta make a lot more,now I don't.I don't have corp supplied insurance,so how, pray tell, am I gonna pay for insurance,I'll keep it simple. I can't.'08. :upeyes:

At that income level you qualify for one or more gov't programs. I'd say that you need to find a better job. Good luck with that. I don't see how you are managing to make ends meet on strictly 10K a year, with no supplemental income.

whogasak47

04-27-2010, 07:56

Watch AZ for the next 90 days to see what happens. Expect more of the same.

certifiedfunds

04-27-2010, 08:15

Then you are in the top .01 % of the population. I don't think you are hurting for cash. So you pay about 30K or 40K in taxes. Is that supposed to impress us?
Yes, I believe that even Warren B benefits far more than the taxes he pays in.

I don't believe in the government taking your entire check, so why would I send my entire check to them. I do believe that the people in the highest income brackets can afford to send along an extra couple of per centage points in income tax. Not the 90% bracket that used to get imposed on higher brackets, but a few per centage points more.

The arrogance of Marxists is astounding when they hold the political power.

What gives you the moral authority to determine how much of someone's income they get to keep?

You think $30-$40K in taxes is a LOT? How clueless are you? I already stated earlier in the thread that my family's total federal income tax bill exceeds our total combined living expenses.

And for that matter, if you aren't paying AT LEAST $30-$40,000 in federal taxes, you aren't paying your fair share.

certifiedfunds

04-27-2010, 08:24

I'm here, but I've given up on you. Its you who spews the platitudes and labels. You are unredeemable. We will have to agree to disagree, but I'm sure that thats not possible for you. You'll just keep dismissing people with labels.

I'll put it back on you then. Tell me what a Marxist/Socialist/Progressive believes. Describe it for us. Compare and contrast that to your own positions as stated repeatedly here.

You can disagree with the label all you want. But the simple fact is that the beliefs you assert here are Marxist/Socialist/Progressive. Instead of whining about it, explain to us all how they are not.

You expect citations and sources, but even if I could produce those, it wouldn't change your mind. I've found that out over years of posting, that those who want to react to my posts have their minds made up already, and no amount of research and info is going to change what they think.
Citations and sources for WHAT? To support your claim that you're not a Marxist? I'd love to see those.

I work three jobs, so its not like I can live on the board.

We live in a complex industrialized nation whose infrastructural development has been built up and improved on over the course of centuries. The programs I'm talking about have existed in an evolving form for a century.
Tell me. How old is the Marxist/Socialist/Progressive movement?

Its hard to say how much you personally benefit from these programs and this infrastructure, but if you live in the USA, theres no way that you DON'T benefit from it. You'd need to go to a Third World country and live there to appreciate what we have here that isn't possible there.
Government didn't make this country the wealthiest in the world. Restraint of government did. Show me a 3rd world country where a man is free and not ruled by a dictator or dictatorial regime.

The sustainability is another issue. To not have these programs will devolve the nation into some form of anarchy, and the infrastructure to crumble over decades, and reliable interstate commerce become a thing of the past. You really want to go there? I don't. You have absolutely NOTHING to support this.

It is very interesting to see how selectively you reply to posts. You have no answers. You have no citations. All you have is what you THINK there in your simple mind and what you have been conditioned to believe.

certifiedfunds

04-27-2010, 08:38

Then you are in the top .01 % of the population. I don't think you are hurting for cash. So you pay about 30K or 40K in taxes. Is that supposed to impress us?

Doesn't matter whether or not it impresses you. But you should be grateful and appreciative because folks like racerford are paying your way in this country.

Frankly, you should say something like, "Thank you Mr. Racerford. Thank you for paying the taxes I don't. Thank you for footing the bill for the government largess that I vote for. I am ashamed that I do not pay the same amount of taxes that you pay for I am an equal citizen with equal rights. I just don't pay an equal share of the bill. I am a freeloader. Thank you for carrying my load."

lawman800

04-27-2010, 09:34

You can't shame a Marxist. They have no shame because to them, it is not wrong to take from others to give to those who cannot or will not.

racerford

04-27-2010, 09:41

Then you are in the top .01 % of the population. I don't think you are hurting for cash. So you pay about 30K or 40K in taxes. Is that supposed to impress us?
Yes, I believe that even Warren B benefits far more than the taxes he pays in.

I don't believe in the government taking your entire check, so why would I send my entire check to them. I do believe that the people in the highest income brackets can afford to send along an extra couple of per centage points in income tax. Not the 90% bracket that used to get imposed on higher brackets, but a few per centage points more.

I pay well more than 30-40k in federal taxes. I didn't state it to impress you. I stated it to demonstrate that I pay more than my share as defined by the average cost of the 2010 Federal Budget per person. That includes all of the deficit spending. And I think they spend more than 50% too much, and maybe 75% too much as defined by the Constitution.

You keep saying I benefit more than I pay. I have demonstrated I don't. Admit your error and arrogance and go on. Or PROVE YOUR statement.

I have no desire to pay more taxes. I pay too much already. It is my money. Why should you be allowed to vote to steal more of my money? You do not have my permission to take it. Yet you vote to take it by force (with the government as your armed agent) and think it is OK. It is not, it is theft by any moral definition.

The reason I say send in your whole check is because you keep saying people get more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Put up you equal share (all men are created equal), or shut up telling me I should pay more, that I don't pay enough. It is my money not the government's money. It is my money, not your money, stop trying to steal more from me.

I would happily pay my equal share (or maybe even more) for the federal government to perform their constitutionally defined role. I am tired of them taking my money do things that they should have no hand in. I am tired of people like you (who don't pay their equal share) telling me I should pay more.

The problem is you would never dream of coming to my door and demand money of me at gunpoint to pay for your equal share of the government(maybe you would, try and see how that works for you). Yet you have no qualms about asking the US government to act as your agent to do so. This is what you are advocating. Do you not see that it is wrong?

certifiedfunds

04-27-2010, 09:59

You can't shame a Marxist. They have no shame because to them, it is not wrong to take from others to give to those who cannot or will not.

And this Marxist cannot see that, direct redistributive social programs aside, when one person pays more in taxes than another to support a common government, that is is de facto redistribution.

rwrjr

04-27-2010, 10:14

Man, try as I might I can't find anything to disagree with in the last 4 posts above.

Wait, let me read them for a 2nd time.... Nope, they pretty much hit the nail squarely on the head. Thanks guys for stating what is obvious to an all too small of a group and for your attempts at enlarging it.

emt1581

04-27-2010, 10:24

I do believe that the people in the highest income brackets can afford to send along an extra couple of per centage points in income tax. Not the 90% bracket that used to get imposed on higher brackets, but a few per centage points more.

If you are NOT a Marxist/Communist, please explain how you do identify yourself and how that bolded statement coincides with your beliefs politically.

Also, please answer some of the questions I left for you before.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds

04-27-2010, 10:53

If you are NOT a Marxist/Communist, please explain how you do identify yourself and how that bolded statement coincides with your beliefs politically.

Also, please answer some of the questions I left for you before.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

I'd like to hear how he defines Marxist.

He only answers questions he mistakenly thinks he has a sharp comeback for.